This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:25:20 (UTC).

SAMI OTHMAN VS ANDRES LUGO ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/09/2017 SAMI OTHMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ANDRES LUGO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2926

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

OTHMAN SAMI

Defendants

ARCHITECTURAL & GRAPHICS

LUGO ANDRES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GOLDBERG STEPHEN B ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

ZARGAROF RONEN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/13/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

3/13/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

Minute Order

4/18/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

6/19/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

Minute Order

6/19/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

7/3/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Minute Order

8/17/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

10/24/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/10/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Settlement

1/22/2019: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order

1/22/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

12/6/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

12/6/2017: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

12/6/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Order to Show Cause - Settlement - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause - Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Sami Othman (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Order to Show Cause - Settlement - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Order to Show Cause - Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 78; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Final Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/06/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Non-Jury Trial; Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 04/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • DocketAMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • DocketAMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; FRAUD - PROMISE MADE WITHOUT INTENT TO PERFORM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sami Othman (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2926    Hearing Date: October 09, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

SAMI OTHMAN;

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRES LUGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****2926

Hearing Date: October 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFF SAMI OTHMAN’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANDRES LUGO AND ARCHITECTURAL & GRAPHICS PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

Plaintiff Sami Othman’s Motion for Order to Enter Judgment Against Defendants Andres Lugo and Architectural & Graphics. The Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Sami Othman in the amount of $200,000 against Defendants Andres Lugo and Architectural & Graphics, jointly and severally.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Sami Othman and Defendant Andres Lugo entered into an oral agreement in January 2016 for Lugo to provide design services to Plaintiff in connection with the construction of two restaurant projects for $16,000. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Plaintiff paid the $16,000 and advanced $5,000 to a plumbing company who works with Lugo, but Lugo did not complete the plans or obtain the permits, as required by the contract. (Comp. ¶ 15.)

Procedural History

Othman filed the original Complaint on March 9, 2017, alleging two causes of action:

  1. Breach of oral contract

  2. Fraud – promise made without intent to perform

On November 7, 2018, the parties represented that they settled the case.

On January 22, 2019, Othman filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case.

On June 12, 2020, Othman filed the instant Motion for Order to Enter Judgment against Defendants Pursuant to Stipulation.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION

  1. MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Othman moves for entry of judgment against Defendants because paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement provides that judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff in the event of default. (Motion at p. 4.) Othman contends that this Court has retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and that the Court is authorized to entered judgment in accordance with the settlement stipulation.

Code Civ. Proc. section 664.6 states that:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

“Section 664.6 permits the trial court judge to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit. [Citation.] It is for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement. [Citation.] In making that determination, ‘the trial court acts as the trier of fact, determining whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. [Citation.] Trial judges may consider oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. [Citation.] When the same judge hears the settlement and the motion to enter judgment on the settlement, he or she may consult his [or her] memory. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1359–1360.)

The parties agreed in the Settlement Agreement that Lugo would complete the work by June 30, 2019, Othman would supply the materials for completion of the work, and that if the work is not completed by that date, then Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $200,000 upon a noticed motion. (Goldberg Decl., Exhs. A-B.) This settlement was presented in open court on November 7, 2018 and also in writing in the Settlement Agreement signed by all parties.. (Goldberg Decl., Exhs. A-B.) In the written Settlement Agreement, paragraph 4 states: “In the event of default, judgment shall be entered forthwith in favor of Plaintiff upon application to the Court by Plaintiff by noticed motion.” (Goldberg Decl., Exh. B.)

Here, Othman has filed a noticed motion pursuant to this section 4 in the Settlement Agreement and represents that Defendants have defaulted on the contract. (Goldberg Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that there is a valid Settlement Agreement between the parties. Section 6 in the Settlement Agreement provides that this Court “shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce this AGREEMENT pursuant to Section 664.6 of the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE of the State of California.” (Goldberg Decl., Exh. B.)

The Court also finds that on January 21, 2019, the parties signed a stipulation for the entry of judgment that “In the event Defendants fail to perform and complete the Project in accordance with the terms set forth above, Defendants agree that Judgment may be entered against them on all causes of action in the Complaint in the amount of $200,000.” (Goldberg Decl., Exh. B; Exh. C.)

Thus, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the matter and may enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. This Motion has been properly noticed and served, and the Motion is unopposed.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS this Motion to Enter Judgment. The Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Sami Othman in the amount of $200,000 against Defendants Andres Lugo and Architectural & Graphics, jointly and severally.

Dated: October 9, 2020

____________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOLDBERG STEPHEN B