2012-00136577-CL-BC

Habibi LLC vs. Emad K Sweidan

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Filed By: Sweidan, Emad K

Self-represented Defendant Sweidan’s Motion to Judicially Enforce Settlement
Agreement Pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 664.6 is DENIED.

Plaintiff Landlord Habibi, LLC leased commercial space to Tenant defendant
commencing in April 2007. After a dispute arose between the parties as to
nonpayment of rent, an Unlawful Detainer action, Habibi LLC v. Emad K. Sweidan,
case no. 12UD06584, was filed. Trial was held on Sept. 18, 2012, and the Court
entered Judgment evicting Tenant, terminating the leashold agreement, issuing a writ
of possession for recovery of the real property and awarding a monetary judgment to
the Landlord in the amount of $14,299.94 plus fees and costs.

On Oct. 4, 2012, post judgment, but prior to writ of execution, the parties reached a
settlement that included authority under C.C.P., sec. 664.6 for the Court to judicially
enforce the settlement agreement.

On Dec. 7, 2012, a new complaint for breach of contract and common counts was filed
by the Landlord against the Tenant. Although the UD documents have not been
provided to the Court, on its face it appears to address the same lease, the same UD
Judgment, and add further disputes.

Tenant now seeks an order judicially enforcing the settlement agreement, and entering
judgment against the plaintiff, dismissing this action.

Defendant also filed a small claims action and obtained a judgment in his favor which
he seeks to have enforced by this motion.

The declaration of Sweidan declares that he had provided all of the required
consideration in support of the Settlement, making the Agreement enforceable.

However, as neither this action nor the small claims action is the litigation that was
addressed by the Settlement Agreement, and no authority has been cited for the
proposition that the Settlement may be used to enforce or dismiss an action not yet
filed at the time the Settlement Agreement was executed, both in different departments
and before different judges of the Superior Court, the motion must be denied on that
ground.