RTA Carneros Village-Phase II LLC vs Amber Fleming et al

Case Number

23CV01943

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/15/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Enforce Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment

Tentative Ruling

RTA Carneros Village - Phase II, LLC v. Amber Fleming, et al

Case No. 23CV01943

           

Hearing Date: April 15, 2024                                                  

HEARING:              Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, Enter Judgment, and Unseal the Court Record

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff RTA Carneros Village - Phase II, LLC: Chris Evans, Melisa Hernandez

For Defendants Amber Fleming and Devern Fleming: Self-Represented

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of plaintiffs to enforce settlement, enter judgment, and unseal the court record, is denied without prejudice.

Background:

This action commenced on May 4, 2023, by the filing of an unlawful detainer complaint by plaintiff RTA Carneros Village-Phase II, LLC against defendants Amber Fleming and Devern Fleming for nonpayment of rent.

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on May 22, 2023, asserting a general denial.

On June 21, 2023, the parties attended a settlement conference that resulted in resolution of the matter on the following terms:

“The defendants shall vacate on or before 8/10/23 with a scheduled lockout date of 8/11/23. The defendants agree to make a payment of $11,250 on or before 9/19/23 by certified check or money order. Upon compliance of those two terms, the defendants’ eviction record shall be sealed and remain sealed.” (Divincenzo Dec., ¶¶ 3, 4 & Exh. 1.)

Defendants vacated the premises but failed to comply with the settlement agreement by not paying plaintiff the agreed upon $11,250.00. (Divincenzo Dec., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order to enforce settlement, enter judgment, and unseal the court record.

No dismissal of the action has been filed.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a) provides:

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.”

“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Ibid.)

A court hearing a motion brought under section 664.6 may “receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment”, but may not “create the 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.)

The settlement agreement was put on the record in open court on June 21, 2023, and constitutes a valid and binding agreement.

However:

For service to be proper, a party must be served “at the person’s current mailing address if known or, if unknown, at the address last given by the person on any paper filed in the proceeding and served on the party making the service.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 684.120, subd. (a)(2).)

The last document filed by defendants is a proof of service of cover sheet for declaration, answer, and declaration of Covid-19 related financial distress. The address on the document is 5142 Hollister Ave., No. 588, Santa Barbara, CA 93111.

According to the proof of service, plaintiff mailed the current motion to 6720 Calle Koral, No. 214, Goleta, CA 93117. This is the address that defendants were evicted from, and plaintiff acknowledges that defendants are no longer at that address.

Because plaintiff was required to serve defendants at the last address given by defendants, service is improper. Because service is improper, the motion will be denied without prejudice.