Case Number: BC514367 Hearing Date: July 20, 2016 Dept: 58

Hearing Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Calendar No: 11
Case Name: Amirianfar v. AMI Commercial LLC, et al.
Case No.: BC514367
Motion: Motion to Enforce Stipulated Judgment
Moving Party: Defendant Kamran Amirianfar
Responding Party: Plaintiff Kourosh Amirianfar

Tentative Ruling: Motion is denied.
________________________________________

On 7/8/13, Plaintiff Kourosh Amirianfar filed this action against Defendant Kamran Amirianfar seeking the dissolution of nominal defendant AMI Commercial LLC in which Kourosh and Kamran each held 50% interest and which owned commercial real property located at 777 E. Pico Blvd. and 778 E. 12th St., Los Angeles, CA. On 7/28/14, the Court entered a stipulated judgment and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions pursuant to CCP § 664.6, which ordered sale of the properties and a wind-up of AMI’s business affairs by 1/30/15 or the Court would appoint a referee/receiver. On 2/6/15, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to extend the deadline for the sale and wind-up to 7/30/15.

Motion to Enforce Stipulated Judgment –
On 6/27/16, Kamran filed this motion to enforce the stipulated judgment pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Kamran submits that the properties were encumbered by a loan which had a balloon principal payment due 10/4/14 (Kamran Decl. ¶¶ 4-5), but the parties were unable to sell or refinance the property prior to the due date such that additional interest, late charges, and fees and costs of $150,230.66 were incurred (id. ¶ 8). The parties each paid one-half of the additional loan charges (id.), and $160,000 from the November 2015 sale of the properties has been held in escrow pending resolution of the parties’ dispute as to fault for the additional loan charges (id. ¶ 9).

CCP § 664.6 provides in pertinent part: “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, . . . the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” On a motion pursuant to CCP § 664.6, the Court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, decide what terms the parties have agreed upon, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment: the Court’s factual findings is subject to a substantial evidence standard. Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.

The pertinent portion of the stipulated judgment Kamran appears to seek to enforce states that the parties are to reasonably and in good faith cooperate to complete the refinancing of the mortgages on the properties at a rate lower than is currently being paid. Stipulated Judgment ¶ 12. However, there is no term that the Court may enforce to determine the parties’ dispute as to fault for the additional loan charges or, upon such determination, order disbursement of the remaining funds in escrow to either party (see Kadin Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 22 (joint escrow instructions concerning the remaining escrow funds)). Therefore, the motion is denied.

The Court notes that CCP § 664.6 is not the exclusive means to enforce a settlement agreement, and that the Court’s ruling does not render an opinion as to whether there is an enforceable settlement agreement if pursued by either party through alternative means (i.e., summary judgment, suit for breach of contract, or suit in equity). See Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293. Additionally, the Court renders no opinion on Kamran’s argument that the parties’ dispute as to fault for the additional loan charges is subject to arbitration (see Kurata Decl. ¶ 5).