MOTION FOR ENTERING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT UNDER SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Conservatorship of Spencer Lewis Rollins 24PR000199
REVIEW HEARING
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
In The Matter of The Patsy Charles Mallman Family Trust 25PR000268
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTION TO SELL CONSERVATEE’S RESIDENCE
TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED.
In The Matter of James C. Metzger Trust 26-63772
THIRTEENTH ACCOUNT AND REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND PETITION FOR SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNT AND APPROVAL OF TRUSTEE FEES
TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED, including fees as prayed.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of 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.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
American Express National Bank et al v. Howard Milstein 23CV000450
MOTION FOR ENTERING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT UNDER SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve a Proposed Judgment no later than May 14, 2026.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of
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.
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?”
“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