Case Number: BC619911 Hearing Date: July 23, 2018 Dept: 51

Background

Plaintiff Jonathan Yu sues defendants Reliant Home Energy, Inc. and Robert Trinh for discrimination, wrongful termination, and related claims.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 10, 2016. On February 21, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. On March 8, 2018, the Court dismissed defendants without prejudice and retained jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment against defendants if necessary. (Further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.)

On June 26, 2018, plaintiff filed this unopposed motion to vacate the dismissal, enforce the settlement agreement, and enter judgment. The Court considered the moving papers and rules as follows.

Motion to Enforce Settlement Standard

The court is empowered to enter judgment where parties to pending litigation stipulate to a settlement either orally before the court or in a writing signed by the parties outside of court. §664.6. 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.

The purpose of section 664.6 is to permit a court, via a summary proceeding, to finally dispose of an action when the existence of the agreement or the terms of the settlement are subject to reasonable dispute. Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 989, 994. Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or not. Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal. App. 3d 200, 209 fn. 4.

“Before judgment can be entered, two key prerequisites must be satisfied . . . . First, there must be contract formation. The litigants must first agree to the material terms of a settlement contract before a judgment can be entered ‘pursuant to the terms of the settlement.’ . . . Second, there must be a ‘writing signed by the parties’ that contains the material terms.” Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797.

Analysis

The Settlement Agreement is a writing signed by the parties containing the material terms of the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement provides that defendants are to pay a total of $30,000.00 over a series of 11 monthly payments beginning in March 2018. Boyajian Decl., Exh. 1 (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2. Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to pay the May 2018 payment and any subsequent payments. MOT 2:13-19; Boyajian Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 3. Defendants were notified of the breach and, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, were given three days to cure. Boyajian Decl., Exh. 3; Settlement Agreement ¶ 4. Because defendants did not do so, they defaulted under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides that after the opportunity to cure a breach has expired, plaintiff “shall have the unconditional and immediate right to file the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, record liens, execute upon the Judgment in any court of appropriate jurisdiction for the full amount then due and owing . . . .” Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.

According to the Settlement Agreement, then, the Court is to enter and enforce a “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.” Paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement provides that Exhibit A is that Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, which defendants were to execute and deliver to plaintiff’s counsel, who would hold it in trust until a breach occurred.

Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, however, is a “Stipulation for Judgment and Agreement Not to Execute.” It was executed by the parties, but it is not in the form of a stipulated judgment to be entered.

In acting under section 664.6, the Court is aware that it cannot “create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon. [Citation.]” J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 983-984, as modified (Dec. 30, 2014). However, here, the Court concludes that since the parties executed both the Settlement Agreement and its Exhibit A, the Court would be effectuating the agreement by entering judgment under its terms by signing the proposed judgment, and would not be adding material terms to it. The proposed judgment appears substantively the same as Exhibit A if its extra verbiage were eliminated and it included only the judgment terms.

Paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement provides that a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff’s counsel represents that Boyajian spent 2 hours preparing the motion at a rate of $500.00 per hour and that he expects Zargarian to spend 3 hours appearing on the motion at a rate of $250.00 per hour. The claimed attorneys’ fees are reasonable, as is the $103.20 claimed in costs. Accordingly, the Court intends to award $1,853.20 in costs and attorneys’ fees.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion and awards $1,853.50 in costs
and attorneys’ fees to plaintiff.

Plaintiff to give notice.