This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 00:46:49 (UTC).

RICHARD ORTIZ VS SERVICE CONNECTION CONTRACTORS CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 02/21/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by RICHARD ORTIZ against SERVICE CONNECTION CONTRACTORS CORPORATION in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4764

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

ORTIZ RICHARD

Defendants and Respondents

SERVICE CONNECTION CONTRACTORS CORPORATI

SERVICE CONNECTION CORPORATION

DOES 1 THROUGH 5

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF RULING AND OSC

5/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING AND OSC

Notice

11/28/2018: Notice

Motion re:

10/3/2018: Motion re:

Order

11/28/2018: Order

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

10/3/2018: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/4/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/10/2018: AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS SERVICE CONNECTION CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, AND SERVICE CONNECTION CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF RICHARD ORTIZ

6/21/2018: DEFENDANTS SERVICE CONNECTION CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, AND SERVICE CONNECTION CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF RICHARD ORTIZ

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/11/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/16/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

7/26/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF OSC, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL DATES

7/30/2018: NOTICE OF OSC, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL DATES

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER -CONFIDENTIAL AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS

8/8/2018: STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER -CONFIDENTIAL AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/26/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

2/21/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT., ETC

2/21/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT., ETC

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/11/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Entire Action; Filed by Richard Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Notice of Ruling (on Motion To Approve PAGA Settement); Filed by Richard Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion - Other (For Approval of Paga Settlement) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Order (Approving PAGA Settlement and Dismissing Entire Action); Filed by Richard Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of Paga Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Paga Settlement; Filed by Richard Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2018
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Richard Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 05/04/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PERSONNEL RECORDS; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT., ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Richard Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694764    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 15, 2019

Case Name: Ortiz v. Service Connection Contractors Corporation, et al.

Case No.: BC694764

Motion: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Richard Ortiz

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Enforce Settlement is granted.


Plaintiff contends that although Defendants were obligated to tender a total of $35,000 pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, Defendants provided only $9,000. Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the parties’ settlement by entering judgment in the unpaid amount of $26,000, with pre- and post-judgment interest, and $6,069.65 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that (1) the Court has retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6, (2) the parties reached a settlement agreement, and (3) the requested judgment is in conformity with said settlement. Thus, the Motion to Enforce Settlement is granted.