On 03/23/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by SAMER RABADI against AMB ENTERPRISES INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SNR FUEL INC.
DOES 1 TO 50
AMB ENTERPRISES INC.
7/26/2018: Minute Order
8/13/2018: DECLARATION OF GERALD F. GILLARD IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMB ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA TRAC'S DEMURRER
8/15/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
8/16/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
8/16/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
8/21/2018: DECLARATION OF MOUNA KEZBAR
8/21/2018: DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER S. GAREEB
8/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
8/30/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
9/5/2018: DEFENDANT AMB ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA TRAC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
7/12/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER
7/19/2018: DECLARATION OF MARKRAM F. GHARIB IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMB ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA TRAC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
7/19/2018: DEFENDANT AMB ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA TRAC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER; DECLARATION OF MARKRAM F. GHARIB
6/14/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
4/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Answer (Cross Defendan's Samer Rabadi's and SNR Fuel, INC's Answer to Cross-Complaint AMB Enterprises, INC. DBA Trac's Cross- Complaint); Filed by Samer Rabadi (Plaintiff); SNR Fuel, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Defendants' Samer Rabadi's and SNR Fuel, INC.'S Answer to Cross-Complaintant a M B Enterprises, INC. DBA Trac's Cross-Complaint; Filed by Samer Rabadi (Plaintiff); SNR Fuel, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by A M B Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant); TRAC (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT AMB ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA TRAC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by A M B Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant); TRAC (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by A M B Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant); TRAC (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by A M B Enterprises, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; AND 2. QUANTUM MERUIT.Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 48; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Court makes order) -Read MoreRead Less
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERRead MoreRead Less
Association of Attorney; Filed by A M B Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant); TRAC (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT AMB ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA TRAC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS SAMER RABADI AND SNR FUEL, INC.'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Demurrer; Filed by A M B Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant); TRAC (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Samer Rabadi (Plaintiff); SNR Fuel, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Samer Rabadi (Plaintiff); SNR Fuel, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC699555 Hearing Date: December 16, 2019 Dept: 48
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT (CCP § 664.6)
MOVING PARTY: Defendant AMB Enterprises, dba TRAC
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Samer Rabadi and SNR Fuel, Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE:
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Defendant AMB Enterprises, dba TRAC moves to enforce the settlement between the parties, such that Defendant need only provide Plaintiff with a fan, not the entire Top Mount Electronics Kit.
Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, the Court may receive evidence to determine whether the parties agreed to certain terms, but may not create material terms of the settlement. City of Gardena v. Rikuo Corp. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 595, 605-607; In re The Clergy Cases I (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236-1237 (bold emphasis added). Where there is an ambiguity in contractual language, i.e., alternative, semantically reasonable meaning, the Court may look to evidence of the circumstances surrounding execution of the contract to give effect to the parties’ intent. California National Bank v. Woodbridge Plaza LLC (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 137, 143-45.
A copy of the written agreement signed by both parties is attached as Exh. A to the motion. At issue is the meaning of the following language, which Defendant contends to mean only the fan, not the entire Top Mount Electronics kit:
Defendant will agree to provide Plaintiff with only the fan as described as SKU 4500058 “Top Mount Electronics Kit (FAN set, E-Box, sensor cover and UV sensor.” Defendant will not agree to install the fan.
(Bold emphasis and underlining added.)
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that if only the fan component of the Top Mount Electronics Kit were to be provided, the language would read “only the fan from SKU 4500058” or “only the fan described in SKU 4500058.” The use of the word, interpreted objectively, suggests that all items in SKU 4500058 was to be provided. Indeed, a reasonable person would objectively expect all parts included in SKU 4500058 to be included so that a functional fan was provided.
Moreover, Plaintiff is not to be held responsible for the ambituity in the language used, because only Defendant and its counsel knew exactly what the fan unit comprised. Declaration of Alexander S Gareeb, ¶ 17. Moreover, the use of the language “only the fan” can be explained by the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel pointed to the fan listed on the BRRF invoice as an item to be included in Plaintiff’s settlement recovery, to distinguish it from other items on the invoice. Id. At ¶¶ 14 – 16, 22.
The Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to enforce the settlement agreement by providing only the fan component of the Top Mount Electronics Kit. The motion to enforce settlement and request for sanctions is DENIED.
However, because Defendant had a plausible interpretation of the ambiguous contract language, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.