This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 16:36:48 (UTC).

SUSANNAH O'BRIEN ET AL VS JOHN RICHARD ROGERS ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/20/2017 SUSANNAH O'BRIEN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOHN RICHARD ROGERS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4340

  • Filing Date:

    11/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

O'BRIEN SUSANNAH

SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS LLC

Defendants and Respondents

SHEFTE FRED

ENTERTAINMENT LLC

HANNOVER HOUSE INC

ROGERS JOHN RICHARD

SHEFTE DON FREDRIK

ROGERS JJ

PARKINSON ERIC

DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE

TRUMAN PRESS INC.

"HANNOVER HOUSE"

MEDALLION RELEASING INC.

CRIMSON FOREST FILMS LLC

XVIII ENTERTAINMENT LLC

SIMS TOM

CRIMSON FOREST ENTERTAINMENT GRP INC.

LIM JONATHAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAZO MARC Y. ESQ.

LAZO MARC YOUSSEF ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

GLAUBIGER DAVID JACOB ESQ.

 

Court Documents

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ; ETC

4/5/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

5/15/2018: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/15/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/11/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/11/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

7/17/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

Minute Order

7/20/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/24/2018: Minute Order

RULING RE: DEFENDANT JOHN RICHARD ROGERS? MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

7/24/2018: RULING RE: DEFENDANT JOHN RICHARD ROGERS? MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Proof of Service

9/7/2018: Proof of Service

NOTICE OF RULING

9/11/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

9/12/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/12/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

10/15/2018: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/18/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

11/20/2017: SUMMONS

55 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Filed by JOHN RICHARD ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JOHN RICHARD ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Order to Show Cause Re: (Failure to file Request for Entry of Default) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure t...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Order to Show Cause Re: (Failure to file Request for Entry of Default) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure t...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • Answer (to First Amended Complaint); Filed by JOHN RICHARD ROGERS (Defendant); XVIII ENTERTAINMENT LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
113 More Docket Entries
  • 12/21/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by SUSANNAH O'BRIEN (Plaintiff); SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SUSANNAH O'BRIEN (Plaintiff); SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SUSANNAH O'BRIEN (Plaintiff); SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SUSANNAH O'BRIEN (Plaintiff); SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684340    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

SUSANNAH O’BRIEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN RICHARD ROGERS., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684340

Hearing Date: September 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFFS SUSANNA O’BRIEN AND SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS, LLC’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 664.6

Plaintiffs Susannah O’Brien and Sahara Vision Productions, LLC’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement is GRANTED. The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $2,750.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Susannah O’Brien is the CEO of Plaintiff Sahara Vision Productions, LLC (collectively referred to as “O’Brien”). (FAC ¶¶ 1–2.) In November 2014, O’Brien met with Defendant John Richard Rogers (“Rogers”), who represented himself as an agent of Defendant Hannover House, Inc. (“House”), to discuss a potential representation contract for O’Brien and a film that she had produced. (FAC ¶ 23.) Rogers represented that he would obtain a distribution deal with House, including theatrical and online distribution, if O’Brien advanced $13,000. (FAC ¶ 24.) O’Brien entered into a representation contract with Rogers and his company, XVIII Entertainment LLC (“XVIII”) in January 2015. (FAC ¶ 25.)

Defendant Eric Parkinson is the CEO of House. (FAC ¶ 10.) Defendant Don Fredrik Shefte (“Shefte”) is the COO/CFO of House. (FAC ¶ 13.) Parkinson sent emails to Rogers and O’Brien confirming the distribution deal in June 2015. (FAC ¶ 27.) O’Brien and Parkinson signed a memorandum of agreement in August 2015 including theatrical, digital, and video distribution rights, as well as marketing and advertising goals and budgeting. (FAC ¶ 27.) O’Brien then paid $10,000 for marketing and advertising the film in anticipation of a theatrical release. (FAC ¶ 27.)

O’Brien alleges that Defendants Crimson Forest Entertainment Group Inc., Crimson Forest Films LLC, and Crimson CEO and Managing Member Jonathan Lim, became licensees in privity with House regarding distribution of the film. (FAC ¶ 28.) Later, Crimson Inc. and House engaged in a stock-for-stock merger, making Crimson Inc. primarily responsible for House’s liabilities. (FAC ¶ 43.)

O’Brien alleges the following misconduct on the part of Defendants. Defendants wrongfully altered the poster and log line for her film, despite her contractual veto right for changes to either. (FAC ¶ 28.) House falsely represented to O’Brien that its goal was to obtain 80 to 100 theaters for distribution of the film, when in fact no theaters were booked for the premiere, and ultimately only ten theaters hosted the release. (FAC ¶¶ 29, 32–33.) Defendants unduly delayed releasing the film without good cause. (FAC ¶ 30.) The film never appeared on Fandango, a ticket-selling website. (FAC ¶ 33.) Defendants never obtained qualification to have the picture hosted on either Netflix’s or Amazon’s video-on-demand services. (FAC ¶¶ 34–35.) Defendants never informed O’Brien of the true and correct number of copies of the film released to Walmart locations, or of the release earnings from Walmart. (FAC ¶ 37.) Defendants repeatedly misrepresented the box office revenue of the picture. (FAC ¶ 38.) After O’Brien signed a second agreement for distribution of a second film, Defendants did not perform on that agreement either. (FAC ¶ 40.)

Procedural History

O’Brien filed the original Complaint on November 20, 2017.

Rogers filed the present Motion to Compel Arbitration on January 25, 2018. No proof of service has been filed.

O’Brien filed the FAC on April 5, 2018, alleging 11 causes of action:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

  3. Breach of Fiduciary Duties

  4. Conversion

  5. Fraud and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

  6. Unjust Enrichment

  7. Intentional Misrepresentation

  8. Negligent Misrepresentation

  9. Fraudulent Concealment

  10. Unfair Business Practices

  11. Accounting

On July 24, 2018, this Court denied Rogers’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On August 16, 2018, Rogers and XVIII Entertainment (hereafter “Defendants”) filed the a Demurrer, which this Court on October 15, 2018 sustained, with leave to amend, for the First Cause of Action as brought by Susannah O’Brien individually and as against John Rogers individually; sustained, with leave to amend, as to the Second Cause of Action; sustained, with leave to amend, for the Third Cause of Action as against Rogers individually; and sustained, with leave to amend, as to the Eighth Cause of Action. This Court overruled the Demurrer to the First Cause of Action as brought by Sahara Vision Productions, LLC against XVIII; to the Third Cause of Action as alleged against XVIII; and to the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Causes of Action.

On December 26, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC.

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Partial Settlement as to Defendants Rogers and XVIII.

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement.

On August 31, 2020, Rogers and XVIII filed an Opposition.

On September 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION

  1. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States[.]” (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)

O’Brien asks this Court to take judicial notice of: (1) the Complaint in this action; (2) the First Amended Complaint in this action, and (3) the Notice of Partial Settlement in this action filed on September 6, 2019. The Court GRANTS these requests.

  1. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

    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.)

Plaintiffs O’Brien move for an order enforcing the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs O’Brien and Defendants Rogers and XVIII entered into on September 30, 2019. (Motion at p. 3.) O’Brien contends that following the settlement agreement, Rogers and XVIII have failed perform their obligations under the agreement. (Motion at p. 3.) The settlement agreement states that Rogers and XVIII were to pay to O’Brien $5,500, payable in two[1] installments of $1,500 on or before November 1, 2019, $2,000 payable on or before December 1, 2019, and $2,000 on or before January 1, 2020. (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 2.1.) Rogers and XVIII have paid $2,000, but have failed to make payment of the remaining $3,500 balance. (Lazo Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Court finds that the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement. However, in Opposition, Defendants argue that they have since paid the outstanding balance. (Oppo. at pp. 2-3.) The Court has reviewed the evidence provided by Defendants, and Rogers paid the outstanding $3,500 balance on June 22, 2020, after this Motion was filed. (Rogers Decl., Exh. A.)

“If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.” (Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1109.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party because the Defendants failed to make timely payment of the outstanding balance and the balance was outstanding at the time this Motion was filed. However, the Court also finds that the request to enforce payment of the outstanding amount is now moot because Defendants have paid the remaining balance.

The settlement agreement states that the prevailing party of a dispute arising out the settlement agreement may receive reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3.14.) While Defendants have now paid the amount due under the agreement, which was due by January 1, 2020 at the latest. (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 2.1.) Defendants make a variety of arguments that Plaintiffs may not recover the attorneys’ fees to enforce the agreement including because: (1) the motion did not include in the first paragraph that attorneys’ fees were sought; and (2) the billed amounts are not credible, excessive, and vague. (Oppo. at pp. 4-6.)

The Court finds that Defendants’ first argument is without merit. The notice specifies that it seeks to enforce the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provides that attorneys’ fees are may be awarded to the prevailing party of a dispute over the agreement. Accordingly, enforcing the agreement includes enforcing this provision for attorneys’ fees. However, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee request to be unreasonable. Plaintiffs request ten hours of attorney work at $550/hr related to preparing the instant motion, however, this amount is unreasonable for a 5-page motion and given that Plaintiff may appear virtually (on-line versus in-person) for this hearing. The Court awards attorneys’ fees for 5 hours of attorney work, for a total award of $2,750.

Dated: September 17, 2020

____________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] The settlement agreement states: “payable in two (3) installments of fifteen hundred (“1,500”)” (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 2.1), which the Court interprets to mean payable in two (2) installments, based on the amounts of the remaining payments.

Case Number: BC684340    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

SUSANNAH O’BRIEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN RICHARD ROGERS., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684340

Hearing Date: June 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFFS SUSANNA O’BRIEN AND SAHARA VISION PRODUCTIONS, LLC’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 664.6

Plaintiffs Susannah O’Brien and Sahara Vision Productions, LLC’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement is GRANTED. The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $2,750.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Susannah O’Brien is the CEO of Plaintiff Sahara Vision Productions, LLC (collectively referred to as “O’Brien”). (FAC ¶¶ 1–2.) In November 2014, O’Brien met with Defendant John Richard Rogers (“Rogers”), who represented himself as an agent of Defendant Hannover House, Inc. (“House”), to discuss a potential representation contract for O’Brien and a film that she had produced. (FAC ¶ 23.) Rogers represented that he would obtain a distribution deal with House, including theatrical and online distribution, if O’Brien advanced $13,000. (FAC ¶ 24.) O’Brien entered into a representation contract with Rogers and his company, XVIII Entertainment LLC (“XVIII”) in January 2015. (FAC ¶ 25.)

Defendant Eric Parkinson is the CEO of House. (FAC ¶ 10.) Defendant Don Fredrik Shefte (“Shefte”) is the COO/CFO of House. (FAC ¶ 13.) Parkinson sent emails to Rogers and O’Brien confirming the distribution deal in June 2015. (FAC ¶ 27.) O’Brien and Parkinson signed a memorandum of agreement in August 2015 including theatrical, digital, and video distribution rights, as well as marketing and advertising goals and budgeting. (FAC ¶ 27.) O’Brien then paid $10,000 for marketing and advertising the film in anticipation of a theatrical release. (FAC ¶ 27.)

O’Brien alleges that Defendants Crimson Forest Entertainment Group Inc., Crimson Forest Films LLC, and Crimson CEO and Managing Member Jonathan Lim, became licensees in privity with House regarding distribution of the film. (FAC ¶ 28.) Later, Crimson Inc. and House engaged in a stock-for-stock merger, making Crimson Inc. primarily responsible for House’s liabilities. (FAC ¶ 43.)

O’Brien alleges the following misconduct on the part of Defendants. Defendants wrongfully altered the poster and log line for her film, despite her contractual veto right for changes to either. (FAC ¶ 28.) House falsely represented to O’Brien that its goal was to obtain 80 to 100 theaters for distribution of the film, when in fact no theaters were booked for the premiere, and ultimately only ten theaters hosted the release. (FAC ¶¶ 29, 32–33.) Defendants unduly delayed releasing the film without good cause. (FAC ¶ 30.) The film never appeared on Fandango, a ticket-selling website. (FAC ¶ 33.) Defendants never obtained qualification to have the picture hosted on either Netflix’s or Amazon’s video-on-demand services. (FAC ¶¶ 34–35.) Defendants never informed O’Brien of the true and correct number of copies of the film released to Walmart locations, or of the release earnings from Walmart. (FAC ¶ 37.) Defendants repeatedly misrepresented the box office revenue of the picture. (FAC ¶ 38.) After O’Brien signed a second agreement for distribution of a second film, Defendants did not perform on that agreement either. (FAC ¶ 40.)

Procedural History

O’Brien filed the original Complaint on November 20, 2017.

Rogers filed the present Motion to Compel Arbitration on January 25, 2018. No proof of service has been filed.

O’Brien filed the FAC on April 5, 2018, alleging 11 causes of action:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

  3. Breach of Fiduciary Duties

  4. Conversion

  5. Fraud and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

  6. Unjust Enrichment

  7. Intentional Misrepresentation

  8. Negligent Misrepresentation

  9. Fraudulent Concealment

  10. Unfair Business Practices

  11. Accounting

On July 24, 2018, this Court denied Rogers’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On August 16, 2018, Rogers and XVIII Entertainment (hereafter “Defendants”) filed the a Demurrer, which this Court on October 15, 2018 sustained, with leave to amend, for the First Cause of Action as brought by Susannah O’Brien individually and as against John Rogers individually; sustained, with leave to amend, as to the Second Cause of Action; sustained, with leave to amend, for the Third Cause of Action as against Rogers individually; and sustained, with leave to amend, as to the Eighth Cause of Action. This Court overruled the Demurrer to the First Cause of Action as brought by Sahara Vision Productions, LLC against XVIII; to the Third Cause of Action as alleged against XVIII; and to the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Causes of Action.

On December 26, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC.

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Partial Settlement as to Defendants Rogers and XVIII.

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement.

On June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion of Non-Opposition.

DISCUSSION

  1. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States[.]” (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)

O’Brien asks this Court to take judicial notice of: (1) the Complaint in this action; (2) the First Amended Complaint in this action, and (3) the Notice of Partial Settlement in this action filed on September 6, 2019. The Court GRANTS these requests.

  1. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

    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.)

Plaintiffs O’Brien move for an order enforcing the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs O’Brien and Defendants Rogers and XVIII entered into on September 30, 2019. (Motion at p. 3.) O’Brien contends that following the settlement agreement, Rogers and XVIII have failed perform their obligations under the agreement. (Motion at p. 3.) The settlement agreement states that Rogers and XVIII were to pay to O’Brien $5,500, payable in two[1] installments of $1,500 on or before November 1, 2019, $2,000 payable on or before December 1, 2019, and $2,000 on or before January 1, 2020. (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 2.1.) Rogers and XVIII have paid $2,000, but have failed to make payment of the remaining $3,500 balance. (Lazo Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Court finds that the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement, and that Rogers and XVIII have defaulted on the agreement. No opposition has been filed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement is GRANTED.

While the settlement agreement states that the prevailing party of a dispute arising out the settlement agreement may receive reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 3.14), the Court finds Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee request to be unreasonable. Plaintiffs request ten hours of attorney work at $550/hr related to preparing the instant motion, however, this amount is unreasonable for a 5-page motion and given that Plaintiff may appear virtually (on-line versus in-person) for this hearing . The Court awards attorneys’ fees for 5 hours of attorney work, for a total award of $2,750.

Dated: June 24, 2020

____________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] The settlement agreement states: “payable in two (3) installments of fifteen hundred (“1,500”)” (Lazo Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 2.1), which the Court interprets to mean payable in two (2) installments, based on the amounts of the remaining payments.