Martyn Pickering vs John Stump et al

Case Number

24CV00097

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Entry of Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Martyn Pickering v. John Stump, et al.                     

Case No. 24CV00097

           

Hearing Date: January 12, 2026                                            

HEARING:              Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry Of Judgment Under Terms Of Settlement Agreement (CCP § 664.6.)

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Martyn Pickering: Self-Represented

For Defendant John Stump: Self-Represented

For Defendant Stumpco, Inc.: Unrepresented

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of plaintiff Martin Pickering for entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted as follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Martyn Pickering and against defendants John Stump and Stumpco Inc., jointly and severally, in the total amount of $304,328.00. Of that amount, $285,000.00 shall constitute wages and penalties under the contract, $18,000.00 shall constitute attorney’s fees under the contract, and $1,328.00 shall constitute sanctions that were awarded by the court on January 6, 2025.

2. Plaintiff shall prepare and file a formal Judgment.

Background:

This action commenced on January 8, 2024, by the filing of the judicial council form complaint by plaintiff Martyn Pickering against defendants John Stump and Stumpco Inc. for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud. Plaintiff alleges he worked for defendants but, despite promises, was not paid for his work perform product design services over the course of several years.

On April 26, 2024, while represented by counsel, defendants answered the complaint with a general denial and 24 affirmative defenses.

On March 22, 2025, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement whereby defendants, jointly and severally, were to pay plaintiff: (1) $285.000.00 as wages and penalties, (2) $18,000.00 as contractual attorney’s fees, and (3) $1,328.00 for sanctions that were awarded by the court on January 6, 2025. The first payment of $80,000.00 was to be paid no later than April 9, 2025, and thereafter additional payments were to be made in satisfaction of the agreement. The agreement specifically acknowledges that the court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the agreement and entering judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On July 24, 2025, plaintiff filed the present motion. Plaintiff contends that defendants have failed to comply with the settlement agreement and pay as required. (Kaestner Decl., ¶ 5.)

The motion was originally scheduled to be heard on October 27, 2025, but the motion was missing attachments and there was defective service.

On December 5, 2025, plaintiff, now self-represented, filed a “Notice of Errata” with the missing declarations attached and a proof of service showing proper service on both defendants.

Defendants have not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“(a) 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.

“(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

“(1) The party.

“(2) An attorney who represents the party.

“(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

“(c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile court or a dependency court.

“(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party's express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.”

“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 parties have entered into a binding and enforceable settlement agreement.

As noted above, the agreement is enforceable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The motion will be granted. To the extent that plaintiff requests that the court add additional damages to the Judgment, by way of his “Status Declaration” filed on October 17, 2025, the court lacks authority to do so.