MCCRACKEN VS. MIRANDA

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207647 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6: Plaintiff Dustin McCracken moves for entry of judgment and enforcement of a written settlement agreement. Defendant Geniveve Miranda does not oppose entry of judgment but does oppose enforcement of the agreement. Defendant’s opposition was untimely. Despite Plaintiff’s objection to the untimely filing, the Court in its discretion will consider the opposition.

Merits. This matter settled pursuant to the parties written settlement agreement executed on October 2, 2025. As part of the written agreement, the parties stipulated to the Court retaining jurisdiction under § 664.6. CCP § 664.6(a) reads:

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. CCP § 664.6.

Both parties agree to entry of judgment of the settlement agreement, to sell the property, and do not dispute the terms of the agreement. Upon review of the evidence, it appears that neither party has acted in compliance with the settlement agreement therefore enforcement is currently inappropriate. Plaintiff contends that Defendant breached the agreement when she refused to accept a third-party offer to purchase the property and moved back into the home. Defendant contends that her conduct was authorized by a take-over provision when Plaintiff initially breached the agreement by failing to perform all agreed upon repairs and the repairs that were initiated were not completed in the manner specified by the agreement.

Defendant submitted evidence that shows that at least some of the initial repairs were not completed prior to listing. The parties do not dispute that an offer was not received within 14-days following completion of the repairs that were done, and the photos show that subsequent required repairs were also not completed. Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiff’s failure to complete the repairs in the time agreed triggered a provision which permitted Defendant to hire a licensed contractor and new listing agent.

The agreement does not 8

permit Defendant to move back into the home.

Plaintiff also requests attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,460.00 for bringing the motion. Section 16 of the written settlement agreement provides that “if litigation is initiated based on a claim that there has been a breach of this Agreement, or enforcement of this Agreement is required pursuant to Section 23 of this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such lawsuit shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”

Considering the alleged breach of the agreement by both parties, the Court does not intend to grant the motion for enforcement of the agreement or attorney’s fees and costs and defers ruling on the motion at this time. The Court notes a settlement conference is currently set for November 30, 2026. The Court believes that a resolution may be reached and advances the settlement conference to Monday, August 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 64. The clerk is directed to vacate the November 30, 2026, settlement conference.

IN RE: SULLIVAN