This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/01/2019 at 01:10:48 (UTC).

SUNKEE HONG VS SUN SMART INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/15/2018 a Other case was filed by SUNKEE HONG against SUN SMART INC 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:

    ****4063

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HONG SUNKEE

Respondents and Defendants

KIM JOHN

BERGMAN KPRS LLC

DOES 1 TO 10

SUN SMART INC

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

6/6/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AMOUNT TO EXCEED $25,000) I: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA?S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL. BUS. & PROF. C. ? 17200 ET SEQ.; 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA?S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW, CAL. BU

6/14/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AMOUNT TO EXCEED $25,000) I: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA?S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL. BUS. & PROF. C. ? 17200 ET SEQ.; 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA?S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW, CAL. BU

NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

6/18/2018: NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

7/20/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

7/20/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

DECLARATION OF JASON E. GOLDSTEIN RE RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE ON AUGUST 13, 2018

8/15/2018: DECLARATION OF JASON E. GOLDSTEIN RE RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE ON AUGUST 13, 2018

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

8/22/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (AMOUNT TO EXCEED S25,000) 1. VIOLATION OF C?ALITORNIA?S FALSE ADVERTISING 1_AW, CAL. BUS. & PROF. C. ? 17500ER. SEQ.; 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA?S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL

8/31/2018: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (AMOUNT TO EXCEED S25,000) 1. VIOLATION OF C?ALITORNIA?S FALSE ADVERTISING 1_AW, CAL. BUS. & PROF. C. ? 17500ER. SEQ.; 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA?S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL

Declaration

10/26/2018: Declaration

Opposition

12/5/2018: Opposition

Reply

12/11/2018: Reply

Minute Order

6/6/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Settlement

6/25/2019: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order

6/25/2019: Minute Order

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

2/26/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/26/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

2/15/2018: SUMMONS

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Sunkee Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 06/25/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 06/07/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

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

    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
  • 02/22/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Sunkee Hong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • COMPLAINT (AMOUNT TO EXCEED $25,000) I. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA'S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, CAL. BUS. & PROF. C. 17200 ET SEQ.;

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694063    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 31

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED

Background

On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff Sunkee Hong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action.

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Sun Smart Inc., B&B Contractors Inc., John Kim, and Mark Bergman, asserting causes of action for violation of the California False Advertising Act, violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, conversion, fraud, and breach of contract.

On December 6, 2018, Defendants Sun Smart, Inc. and John Kim filed an answer to the second amended complaint.

On December 18, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants B&B Contractors, Inc. and Mark Bergman’s demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action without leave to amend. The Court also granted the motion to strike Plaintiff’s claim of attorneys’ fees.

On January 2, 2019, Defendants B&B Contractors, Inc. and Mark Bergman filed an answer to the remaining causes of action in the second amended complaint.

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing Defendants B&B Contractors, Inc. and Mark Bergman.

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

Motion

Plaintiff seeks an order enforcing his written settlement agreement with Defendants Sun Smart, Inc. and John Kim (collectively “Defendants”).

Opposition

Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition on November 19, 2019. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, but they dispute any request by Plaintiff for sanctions.

Reply

A reply brief has not been filed as of December 3, 2019.

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §664.6 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “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.”

In hearing a C.C.P. §664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) The Court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “Parties” under CCP § 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [“we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6…means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record”].)

Discussion

Plaintiff Sunkee Hong (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order enforcing his written settlement agreement with Defendants Sun Smart, Inc. and John Kim (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.

Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing the settlement agreement with Defendants. Plaintiff submitted evidence he entered into a written Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) with Defendants. (Declaration of Wheeler ¶5; Exhibit A.) The Settlement Agreement appears to have been signed by Plaintiff and Defendants. (Declaration of Wheeler ¶5; Exhibit A.) The parties agreed “that the Court the Lawsuit is filed in shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. § 664.6 to enforce the settlement.” (Declaration of Wheeler ¶5; Exhibit A.) Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff the amount of $10,000.00 within sixty days of the full execution of the agreement and Plaintiff agreed to dismiss Defendants with prejudice within seven days of the receipt of the payment. (Declaration of Wheeler ¶5; Exhibit A.) The Settlement Agreement was executed in July 2019. (Declaration of Wheeler ¶5; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff submitted evidence Defendants have not paid any amount, as of October 23, 2019. (Declaration of Wheeler ¶¶6-7.) Plaintiff has not exercised his right to void the Settlement Agreement and, instead, seeks to enforce the agreement. (Declaration of Wheeler ¶8.)

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition on November 19, 2019.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted. Plaintiff does not appear to request sanctions. The caption merely references sanctions. Assuming, arguendo, Plaintiff seeks an award of sanctions, the request is denied. The notice of motion does not state Plaintiff seeks an award of sanctions and any request for sanctions is not supported by the memorandum of points and authorities and supporting declaration.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted. The Court enters Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $10,000.00.