What is enforcement of settlement agreement?

Useful Rulings on Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

Recent Rulings on Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court recognizes that in the future some Plaintiffs might be able to show imminent threat of irreparable harm, depending on the City’s conduct with respect to their STR permit renewals, Code enforcement, and other changed circumstances. For this reason, the application for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Stay of Enforcement of Court’s Judgment The Court is inclined to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal. The Court is persuaded that the status quo should be maintained pending appeal so that any different relief granted by the Court of Appeal is not rendered illusory, and to avoid interfering with those parts of the Permit which may have been successfully implemented by some cities affected by the Permit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

LA LIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KA WAIKWAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Discussion Plaintiff argues that bifurcation of its claims for breach of lease and enforcement of guaranty (“Underlying Claims”) from the Cross-Complaints’ express contractual indemnity, equitable/implied indemnity, and contribution claims (“Indemnification Claims”) “would greatly promote the interests stated in the Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 1048(b)” because “the Indemnification Claims are entirely derivative of the Underlying Claims.” (Motion, p. 3:17-19.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARJORIE L BERTRAND TRUST

Appearances to report status, including settlement 2. Proposed Order Note: Objections filed by Karen Jones 7/25/2019. CYNTHIA L GORMAN BRUCE C PALTENGHI KAREN JONES SUSANNE B COHEN THE MARJORIE L. BERTRAND TRUST FILED ON 10/15/19 BY STEPHEN KIRK PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances to report status, including mediation 2. Declaration in support of attorney’s fees requested 3. Proposed Order Notes: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

On March 23, 2018, a Consent Judgment was entered in that case which, in part, provided for the retention of jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Judgment and provided enforcement procedures to address any alleged non-compliance with the Consent Judgment. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations concern conduct which is explicitly regulated under the Consent Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

(b) When there is a stay of proceedings other than the enforcement of the judgment, the trial court shall have jurisdiction of proceedings related to the enforcement of the judgment as well as any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order appealed from. Factual Background Plaintiff was a president of Defendant homeowners association, and Defendant Rodriguez is an individual who resides in the community and is a member of the homeowners association.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

On August 23, 2018, a “Stipulation [and Order] Re: Determination of Good Faith Settlement Between Defendants US National Investment Group, Inc. dba US National Realty and Jenny Kong and [Plaintiffs]” was filed. On October 25, 2018, Plaintiffs dismissed Kong and U.S. National with prejudice. On October 15, 2019, the remittitur was filed (affirmed).

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

On April 21, 2020, a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” was filed. An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for November 6, 2020. 1. Motion for Protective Order Legal Standard “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2025.420(a) [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

REBEKAH LYNN ROGERS ET AL VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is set for August 4, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Petitioner Rebekah Lynn Rogers (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr. (“Claimant”). LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952(a), Petitioner and Claimant are typically required to attend the hearing on the petition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP LLP VS DUONG HANG, AN INDIVIDUAL

Legal Standard CCP § 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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, 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

June 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Bank, All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s [sic] Title or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s [sic] Title Thereto (“All Persons”) and Does 1-10 for: Quite [sic] Title Cancellation of Instruments Violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (“HBOR”) Breach of Contract Violation of Court Approved Settlement

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

RAUL GUZMAN VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Guzman argues that the settlement agreement authorizes costs and fees. (Romano Decl. ¶ 5.) The Court has reviewed the provided settlement agreement and finds that FCA “offers to pay reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees based on actual time pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d) as stipulated by the parties or, if the parties cannot agree, upon motion to the Court, having jurisdiction over this action. (Romano Decl. Exh. 1.) Accordingly, Guzman may recover costs, expenses and fees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT GEORGE TUPAC

Hearing: 1) First & Final Account and Report of Executor and Settlement 2) Allowance of Statutory Executor Compensation & Reimbursement of Costs 3) Allowance of attorney fees 4) Instructions on Invalidation, Priority and Payments of Creditor's Claims when Estate is Insolvent, and 5) Abatement of Entire Distribution *************** The Court has reviewed Conservator's First Account and Report and intends to rule as follows: Subject to the foregoing, Grant. Approve the first and final account and report.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

C AYRAPETYAN VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Discussion EXPEDITED PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE Under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court. ¿If the Court is satisfied that the settlement is in the best interest of the person, then the Court should approve the settlement. (See Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RUBY VILLESCAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

Penal Code section 836 provides law enforcement with statutory approval to arrest without a warrant when: (1) the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed; and (2) the peace officer makes the arrest as soon as probable cause arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BUDWISER VS. CUNNINGHAM

On March 11. 2020 the Plaintiff served notice of her motion for entry of a judgment due to Defendant’s default in making payments required by the settlement. The Defendant has not opposed the motion. The motion is granted. The Plaintiff shall prepare an order granting the motion and a proposed judgment that includes the principal amount owed plus interest and attorney fees as provided in the settlement agreement. The Defendant shall be credited with any amount he has previously paid on the debt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PORTER RENTS LLC VS. K.D.M. BUILDERS

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PER WRITTEN STIPULATION FILED BY PORTER RENTS, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Plaintiff has moved for entry of a judgment based upon Defendant’s default in making payments pursuant to a prior settlement agreement entered between the parties. A notice of settlement was previously filed with the court on July 25, 2019. The Defendant has filed no opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS. JOHNSON

He papers submitted by the Plaintiff reflect that the Defendant entitled to credits of $100 for payments made under this particular settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS. JOHNSON

He papers submitted by the Plaintiff reflect that the Defendant entitled to credits of $150.38 for payments made under the settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CAPITAL ONE VS. JOHNSON

The court urges the parties to meet and confer before that date to try to arrive at a settlement. This case started as a suit for $3691 in credit card debt. The parties have already expended time and resources well in excess of any amount justified by the size of the alleged debt and should try to bring this matter to a merciful end.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MARIA JANET CORDERO VS WILLIAM LANDES

Second, the court finds Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees in this action as the provision expressly includes litigation to enforce the settlement agreement. (Rubin Decl., Exh. 1.) On February 27, 2020, this court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Compel Enforcement of Settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

On March 10, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order: 1) staying enforcement of Bilal Judgment; 2) quashing Bilal’s illegally-obtained ORAP re Siegel; and 3) shortening time for hearing on pending noticed motion for such relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BC&D SERVICES, LLC V. CHU

The parties shall attend the hearing prepared to set dates for a trial and mandatory settlement conference. Chu is ordered to give notice, unless notice is waived by all parties at the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

Seck has the legal authority to assert a lien on the proceeds of the Reddick settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MUCINO VS. KIM

A non-trial attorney must be “completely familiar with the case and who has full authority to enter into stipulations and settlement.” The Minute Order does not address this issue. In addition, Judge Horn stated that “Attorney for Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to engage in meaningful settlement discussions.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.