Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Settlement
Case No.: VCU324889 Date: June 15, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and enter judgment in the amount of $43,399.38.
Facts In this breach of contract and financial elder abuse matter, Plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement on December 12, 2025. On February 25, 2026, this matter was dismissed without prejudice and with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants were to pay Plaintiff the sum of $75,000.00 due on or before December 31, 2025, interest was to accrue at ten percent (10%) per annum after January 5, 2026. In January 2026, counsel for Plaintiff received two (2) checks for a combined total of $35,000.00 towards the settlement. However, no payment has since been made.
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement, states: "Both parties do hereby agree to bear their own attorney's fees and costs associated with Tulare County Superior Court, Case No. VCU324889 and the preparation of this Agreement. However, in any action or proceeding between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, or the rights and duties of any party in relation thereto, the party prevailing shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to recover from the losing party its reasonable attorney's fees and costs in such action or proceeding, or any other separate action brought for that purpose."
Therefore, Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment in the amount of $40,000.00, with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum after January 5, 2026, plus attorney's fees in the amount of $4,287.50, and costs of $126.60. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum of costs as well as itemized billing records reflecting 13.25 hours incurred at rates of $350 to $175 and 2 anticipated hours.
In opposition, Defendant indicates efforts to obtain the funds to pay the settlement, does not dispute that interest has accrued at 10% since January 5, 2026, argues that the attorneys' fees and costs are excessive and states "Here, the terms of the Settlement Agreement did not state that the $75,000.00 had to be paid within a certain timeframe. Further, the terms of the Settlement Agreement did not state that the full amount had to be paid by January 5, 2026." (Opposition 4:26-28.)
Authority and Analysis Section 664.6 (a) states: "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."
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?”
"The court's retention of jurisdiction under section 664.6 includes jurisdiction over both the parties and the case itself, that is, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction." (Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (2014) 230 Cal.App.4 th 1050, 1061.)
"Section 664.6 permits the trial court judge to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit." (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4 th 1355, 1360)
The mandatory requirements for application of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6: (1) the request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction has been made during the pendency of the case; (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) in a writing signed by the parties expressly, clearly, and unambiguously requesting the court retain jurisdiction under this statute. (Mesa RHF Partners, LP. v. City of Lost Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.)
It appears undisputed that the Court has retained jurisdiction and that the parties have entered into a valid, binding settlement agreement. Section 664.6 permits the Court to enter a judgment in strict conformance with the terms of a settlement agreement. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 664.6(a) ["the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement."]
Further, "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." (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)
Further, the Court need not find a breach of the settlement agreement to enter judgment thereon, as disputes as to breach or compliance with the settlement agreement "...are not relevant to the entry of judgment pursuant to section 664.6." (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795 citing Hines, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1185 ["a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute"].)
As such, the Court will enter judgment, as to the principal amount of $40,000, consisting of the stipulated sum of $75,000 less $35,000 credit for payments made, plus costs, attorneys' fees and interest, as noted below.
Costs and Attorneys' Fees As noted above, Plaintiff has filed a memorandum of costs seeking $126.60 in costs. Defendants challenge the $22.20 fee for electronic filing and the additional $44.40 fee.
The starting point is the verified Memorandum of Costs and Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. "[T]he verified Memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred" and the burden rests with the party seeking to tax costs to show they were improper, unreasonable or unnecessary. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 855-856.)
Allowable costs under section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. An item not specifically allowable under Section 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount).
If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)
On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(14) permits recovery of fees for electronic filing or service only "if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents" and that Tulare County does not mandate electronic filing or service. Therefore, the Court views 1033.5(a)(14) as precluding recovery for these types of costs when not required or ordered by this Court.
The Court does not view these costs as valid on their face given the prohibition under section 1033.5(a)(14) because 1033.5(c)(4) states " (4) Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion." Here, the item of electronic filing and service is mentioned in this section under (a)(14). Therefore, the Court will strike the $22.50 in electronic filing.
As to the $44.40, it is entered under Item 14 "Fees for electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider (enter here if required or ordered by the court)." The Court is unaware of any order or mandatory requirement as to electronic filing and therefore strikes this amount as well.
As to the attorneys' fees, the Court finds the rates proposed comparable to the standard rates in this County. However, the Court will reduce the hours as to enforcement of the stipulation as a judgment. The Court will reduce the "PT" entries, at a rate of $175 per hour, to 3 hours total and the "ER" entries, at a rate of $350 per hour, to 3 hours total. As such, the Court will award $1,575 in fees and $60 in costs.
Interest Plaintiff seeks interest at a rate of 10% per annum from January 5, 2026. The Court calculates a daily interest amount of $10.96 and therefore, as of the date of this hearing, the Court calculates interest in the amount of $1,764.38.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Court is prepared to enter judgment in the amount of $43,399.38, consisting of $75,000 of the principal balance plus $1,575 in fees and $60 in costs, plus $1,764.38 in interest, less $35,000 in credits for payments made.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Mariner Finance, LLC vs. Castro, Arturo R