Affordable Building Services, LLC v. The Meritage Resort, LLC

hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Plaintiff American Express National Bank moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 664.6, to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Howard Milstein.

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a). Emphasis added.) “By its express terms, section 664.6 only permits an entry of stipulated judgment by parties to ‘pending litigation.’” (Housing Group v. United Nat. Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1112.)

There is proof on file that summons was served on Mr. Milstein in this action on May 23, 2023. There is further proof on file that: (1) the parties entered into a settlement agreement of the matter; (2) that pursuant to that settlement agreement the Court maintained jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6; and (3) Mr. Milstein breached the settlement agreement by failing to make any of the required payments. (See Declaration of Spencer Penuela filed in support of the Motion at ¶ 4, and Exh. 1.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause for entering judgment consistent with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

Affordable Building Services, LLC v. The Meritage Resort, LLC 25CV001342

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

Annamarie Thammala et al v. Robert Knox Thomas 25CV002092

CROSS-DEFENDANT WHEELS BOUTIQUE, INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

TENTATIVE RULING: In light of the dismissal of Cross-Complainant Robert Knox’s (“Knox”) Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Wheels Boutique, Inc. (“Wheels”) entered on April 23, 2026, Wheels’ motion to quash service of the Summons and Cross-Complaint by Knox is MOOT.

3