PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 25CV04124
AYYAD et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.
(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT PAJARO REGIONAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
The unopposed motion is granted and the Court will sign the order submitted by counsel.
No. 24CV00823
NIXON v. BENSON et al.
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
The unopposed motion is granted and judgment is entered pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement. Defendants failed to file any timely opposition.
“A court ruling on a motion under CCP § 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. The court ruling on a motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. 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. The statute expressly
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?”
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
provides for the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182, citations omitted.)
“A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) An essential element of any contract is mutual consent. (Id. at 811.)
The parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement, effective October 10, 2025 (see Declaration of DiBenedetto, Exhibit A). They agreed to be bound by its terms; “[i]n order to resolve this dispute, the parties agree as follows:....” The settlement terms included in that Memorandum, listed below, are confirmed and no further formal settlement agreement is necessary:
1. Betty Benson, Trustee of the Benson Family Trust A Under Agreement Dated November 30, 1994 (hereinafter “Benson”) grants to Debera Nixon (hereinafter “Nixon”) a non-exclusive easement along their shared border between 527 Middlefield Drive and 529 Middlefield Drive, Aptos. The easement extinguishes upon the removal of the section of the structure at 527 Middlefield Drive that encroaches onto the 529 Middlefield Drive property.
2. Benson agrees to remove approximately 26 and 1/2 linear feet of the small fence demarcating the approximate property line. The fence shall be removed upon payment in full of the monies set forth in Section 3 below.
3. Debera Nixon agrees to pay Betty Benson the sum of $15,000.
4. Debera Nixon agrees to dismiss her complaint with prejudice against all parties; each side to bear their own fees and costs.
5. Debera Nixon agrees to limit movement of her garbage and recycling containers to 7 a.m. & 7 p.m., seven days per week.
6. Debera Nixon agrees not to store any garbage or recycling containers to the right side of the window's edge up to the backyard gate of the home at 527 Middlefield Drive.
7. Debera Nixon grants Benson access to 527 Middlefield Drive for purpose of Benson painting or staining or otherwise maintained the shared fence upon reasonable notice.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
8. Any work performed by any party along the area of the granted easement shall be performed by licensed contractors with appropriate insurance coverage.
9. Benson agrees to consult with their contractors to address any potential privacy concerns raised by the use of security cameras.
10. Benson permits Nixon to install garden items on the Nixon side of the shared backyard fence.
11. Nixon may install a gate that attached [sic] to the Benson fence post.
12. This agreement with be further memorialized in a written settlement agreement with appropriate documents.1
13. This agreement is meant to bind the parties and is enforceable in court per CCP Section 664.6.
Moving party to file entry of dismissal no later than July 10, 2026.
No. 25CV03559
ROCHA, et al. v. FCA US LLC
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CCP § 871.26
The motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Leslie Rocha and Carlos Aguilar purchased a new 2025 Jeep Grand Cherokee, manufactured by defendant FCA US LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle suffers from unspecified defects and nonconformities that substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs allege they presented the vehicle for various repairs, but FCA could not remedy the defects and failed to repurchase or replace the vehicle. (Compl. ¶¶ 19- 22.) Plaintiffs allege two causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
1 This provision is unnecessary considering the parties have already executed a settlement document.