Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6
| CV-25-004507 - VALVERDE, ANTHONY vs SILVA, EMANUEL - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Emmanuel Silva to Provide Further Written Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Production of Cell Phone Records; and Request for Sanctions - GRANTED, in part. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the production of Defendant Silva's cell phone records relative to the occurrence of the accident, as the evidence establishes that Defendant had his cell phone in the vehicle at the time and cannot recall whether he used the phone within the 20-minute period before the accident.
Additionally, there appears to be no other method by which to obtain relevant information that the subject records may disclose, i.e. the existence of additional witnesses, the existence of potential distractions, and the like. However, the Court is mindful of the law's protection of Plaintiff's privacy interests in his cell phone usage, as well as the information reflected thereby, and of the Court's duty to balance the respective rights of the parties in this situation to reach a proper resolution of the issue.
Therefore, the Court finds that good cause exists to compel limited production of the requested records, to include records evidencing Defendant Silva's cell phone activity within the 20 minute periods occurring immediately before and after the time of the accident. Therefore, Defendant shall provide verified further responses identifying any responsive materials within the above-defined parameters within 14 days. The Court declines to award sanctions. CV-25-001828 - CHAVOLLA, EVA vs DARLING INGREDIENTS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Civil Court Proceedings - DENIED, without prejudice, as premature.
The Court notes that the arguments relative to the instant petition reference allegations made in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which is not contained in the Court's file. Therefore, the motion is premature at this juncture, as the state of the pleadings appears to be unsettled herein. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24: CV-23-004665 - PAULEEN BAJWA & MCKELLAR ENTERPRISES vs RAS AUTOMOTIVE INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant's RAS Automotive Inc., Harinderjit Kaur, and Vik Randhawa; and Their Counsel Philip Minter Esq.
Pursuant to CCP 128.5 and 128.7 - DENIED. The motion is procedurally defective in several respects. Plaintiff improperly combines requests for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 128.5 and 128.7 into a single motion, contrary to the statutory requirement that such requests be made separately. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(A), 128.7, subd. (c)(1).) Additionally, the motion improperly seeks Sec. 128.7 sanctions against represented parties in a manner inconsistent with the statute. (See Code Civ.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Proc., Sec. 128.7, subd. (b).) Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated strict compliance with the safe harbor provisions. The version of the motion served during the safe harbor period does not appear to be identical to the motion filed, and there is an insufficient showing that a complete, properly noticed motion was served at least 21 days before filing. (See Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538 (Galleria Plus).) The above procedural defects are fatal. Strict compliance with the procedural rules governing sanctions motions is a necessary precursor to granting them.
Statutory non-compliance subjects a sanctions order to reversal. (See Galleria Plus, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 538; see also Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 698-700 [noncompliance with Section 128.7(c)(1) may be raised for first time on appeal in appropriate situations].) Even so, the Court notes that it would decline to impose sanctions on the merits. The filing of Defendants' motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6, though unsuccessful, does not demonstrate that it was presented for an improper purpose or in bad faith within the meaning of Sec.Sec. 128.5 or 128.7.
For the above reasons, the motion for sanctions is DENIED. CV-23-006303 - HILMAR CHEESE COMPANY INC vs FERREIRA, TIMOTHY - Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce
Settlement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 - DENIED. This matter came on for hearing and was continued to allow the parties to meet and confer regarding the documents at issue and to file a Joint Status Statement ("JSS") addressing whether the motion should proceed. The Court has reviewed the JSS and the papers submitted. Background and Findings On September 5, 2025, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Limited Release (SALR) that, among other terms, (a) required Hilmar to provide specified "Agreed Books and Records," (b) permitted the Trustee, within fifteen days after receipt, to make a further request for books and records if the Agreed Books and Records did not suffice for his needs, and (c) provided that if the parties were not able to reach agreement on further books and records that satisfied the Trustee, the Trustee could declare the Agreement null and void.
Hilmar provided an initial production on September 6, 2025, and a supplemental production on September 23, 2025. On September 19, 2025, the Trustee expressly invoked Section 1(b) of the Settlement Agreement and made a further request for books and records, identifying categories of missing documents and insufficient data. On September 22, 2025, Hilmar responded that certain requested materials did not exist and addressed other items, and on September 23, 2025, provided a supplemental production.
Also on September 23, 2025, the Trustee's expert, Kyle TenHuisen, submitted a declaration stating that, Hilmar had provided some but not all requested information and that the documents and information provided to date were insufficient to allow completion of an accurate appraisal absent an inspection consistent with "Site Inspection Option No. 2." On September 26, 2025, Trustee's counsel referenced the TenHuisen declaration in correspondence with Hilmar's counsel as stating the Trustee's position regarding additional missing documents necessary to meet the Trustee's needs.
On March 4, 2026, after further exchanges and following Hilmar's filing of the instant motion, Trustee's counsel stated that the parties were not able to reach an agreement for the production of further books and records which satisfied the Trustee and declared the September 5, 2025, Settlement Agreement null and void. Legal Conclusion The Court finds that the parties' Settlement Agreement and Limited Release gives Defendant the discretion to determine the sufficiency of Plaintiff's production of Agreed Books and Records (Settlement Agreement and Limited Release Sections 1(b) and (c)).
Under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6, the Court may enter judgment only pursuant to the terms of a settlement. On this record, the Court finds: 1. The Trustee timely invoked Section 1(b) of the Settlement Agreement and made a further request for additional books and records.
2. The parties thereafter were unable to reach agreement on further production sufficient to satisfy the Trustee, as reflected in Mr. TenHuisen's September 23, 2025, declaration, the September 26, 2025, correspondence, and the continued disagreement over the availability and sufficiency of requested materials.
3. The Trustee ultimately declared the Settlement Agreement null and void pursuant to Section 1(b) after the parties were unable to reach agreement on further production. Notwithstanding that Defendant did not expressly declare said Agreement null and void till March 2026, to the extent that Defendant had previously expressed said insufficiency and that the Agreement provides for the requested relief upon the sufficient production of books and records, Plaintiff may not obtain the requested relief.
4. The record further reflects that the parties were unable to reach agreement regarding additional production, as confirmed in the JSS, despite being given the opportunity to meet and confer following the Court's continuance. Plaintiffs contend that the Trustee failed to identify with sufficient specificity the documents required to satisfy his concerns. The Court agrees that a more particularized identification of requested materials may have assisted the parties in resolving their dispute. However, the SALR does not require the Trustee to provide an exhaustive
list of documents as a condition to exercising the nullification provision. The relevant inquiry is whether the Trustee invoked the contractual procedure and whether the parties were unable to reach agreement. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Hilmar argues that the Trustee's actions violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the Settlement Agreement. However, the implied covenant cannot be used to impose obligations beyond those expressly agreed upon in the contract. (Bevis v.
Terrace View Partners, LP (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 230, as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 21, 2019); Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342). The Settlement Agreement explicitly provided a mechanism for the Trustee to declare the Agreement null and void if further production did not satisfy his needs. The Trustee's invocation of this provision was consistent with the express terms of the Agreement and does not constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot override the clear and unambiguous terms of the contract, which allowed the Trustee to declare the Agreement null and void under the specified conditions. Plaintiffs contend that the Trustee's determination must be objectively reasonable. The Court has considered Storek & Storek, Inc. v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 44. Under Storek, where a contract confers discretion based on a party's satisfaction, that discretion is exercised based on the party's good faith judgment, rather than an objective reasonableness standard imposed by the Court.
Applying that standard, the Court finds that the Trustee's determination that the production was insufficient was made in good faith. The Trustee's position is supported by the record, including the valuation expert's statements regarding the information required to complete the appraisal. The Court therefore finds that the Trustee acted within the scope of the discretion afforded under the SALR. Because the Agreement was declared null and void by its own terms following the parties' inability to reach agreement on further production that would satisfy the Trustee, there is no enforceable settlement to reduce to judgment under Sec. 664.6.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is hereby DENIED. No judgment shall be entered under Sec. 664.6 based on the September 5, 2025, Settlement Agreement, and the books-and-records claims remain unresolved for purposes of further proceedings consistent with this Court's docket and the parties' pleadings. CV-25-005613 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs VALDOVINOS, ERIKA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. Plaintiff submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration.
Plaintiff states that it propounded requests for admissions on Defendant and received no response. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the truth of facts specified be deemed admitted. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) Accordingly, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The proposed order references an attachment that is not included. (Plaintiff may have intended to cross-reference the attachments to the underlying requests for admissions that were propounded on Defendant, but the language in the proposed order is unclear.) Plaintiff is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that includes the attachment. CV-25-005891 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs KING, JULIE A - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
Plaintiff submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Plaintiff states that it propounded requests for