Motion to enforce settlement
Defendant’s default was entered on February 17, 2026. (ROA 11.) Defendant timely filed this motion on April 1, 2026. (ROA 28.)
Defendant seeks discretionary relief based on his claimed mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. Defendant was evidently served with the summons and complaint by substitute service on a former employee. (Dunn Dec., ¶¶ 3-6.) The former employee placed the Complaint in a desk drawer and never told Defendant anything about it. (Id.) Defendant did not discover the documents until February 9, 2026, when he located them in the drawer. (Id.) On February 10, 2026, Defendant notified his insurance carrier about the Complaint and tendered it to his carrier.
Defendant has made a sufficient showing of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect to warrant setting aside the default.
Defendant shall file the Answer to the Complaint within 7 days of this ruling.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.
10 Mills vs. CONTINUED TO 9/2/26 Nexgen Air Conditioning and Heating, LLC 11 Regions Bank TENTATIVE RULING: vs. USARIUM INC Plaintiff Regions Bank, Successor by Merger to Ascentium Capital, LLC’s motion to enforce settlement with Defendants Usarium Inc. and Aleh Manchuliantsau is GRANTED in part, as set forth below.
Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 provides: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.”
On January 1, 2021, Section 664.6 was amended to state that a settlement agreement signed by an attorney who represents the party is considered “signed by the party” and can be enforced under that Section.
Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 “was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a
new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 809
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?”
“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 provides for the court to ‘enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.’” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1182 (internal citations omitted).)
As such, the elements that must be met pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 are as follows:
1. There is a valid and binding settlement agreement of all or part of the case; 2. The parties agreed to all material settlement terms; 3. If it is a written stipulation, the writing is signed by all parties or their counsel; 4. The settlement agreement was made pending litigation; 5. A Motion to Enforce is made.
Here, the court finds that Plaintiff has offered sufficient admissible evidence to establish a valid and binding settlement agreement and/or stipulated judgment exists between the parties. (See Declaration Mary Peloquin, ¶3 & Ex. A). The settlement contains the signatures of both Defendants (Id., Ex. A at p. 8). Defendants have not filed an opposition to challenge the validity of the settlement agreement.
As such, the court finds that Plaintiff has established that a valid and binding settlement agreement exists, that the parties, by their signatures, agreed to all material terms, that the settlement agreement is memorialized in writing and is signed by all parties, that the settlement agreement was made pending this litigation, and that Plaintiff has made a motion to enforce the settlement. The stipulated judgment agreed that this court would retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement. Each element of §664.6 has, therefore, been met.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that if Defendants failed to comply with the payment plan set forth in the agreement, “Defendants stipulate to entry of judgment against them, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $57,165.59, plus interest at the contract rate of 18% per annum from September 10, 2024, plus attorneys’ fees and costs after the date of this Stipulation, attorneys fees and costs to file the motion or application to enforce this Stipulation, any order fee required to file the attached proposed order, less credit for payments made in good funds before the time of any default hereunder, and judgment for possession of the Siemens 12” IP65 Control System secured by the Agreement (“Equipment”).” (Id., Ex. A at p. 2, §1).
Plaintiff’s counsel has offered a declaration that calculates the sums owed under the stipulated judgment, as follows:
• $57,165.59 Principal sum • -$ 3,046.27 Payments made • $18,709.69 Interest from September 10, 2024, at 18% • $ 912.22 Attorneys’ fees to file the current motion • $ 60.00 Costs
The court find that this evidence is sufficient to establish that the motion should be granted and judgment entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, attached as Ex. A.
There, however, is a discrepancy in the amount of the total judgment that Plaintiff seeks.
• On page 4:15 of the motion, Plaintiff states that the total judgment amount is $73,800.64.
• On page 4:20 of the motion, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in the total amount of $71,722.20.
• The court, using the numbers stated in p. 4:7-14 of the motion for principal, payments made, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, reaches a total amount of $73,801.23 based on the court’s own calculations.
Thus, the court’s tentative is to grant the motion and enter judgment in the amount of $73,801.23.
Plaintiff to give notice and prepare a judgment consistent with this ruling.
12 Schneider- TENTATIVE RULING: Kidan vs. Estate of Plaintiff Tracy Lynn Schneider-Kidan’s motion to reconsider or Leonard vacate/set aside the March 18, 2026, order granting Defendant Tierney Richard Chipman’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED without prejudice as to section 473(b) relief only.
On March 18, 2026, the court granted Defendant Richard Chipman’s motion to quash service of summons. In doing so, the court found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing by admissible competent evidence that the court may exercise general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant Chipman.
Plaintiff contends that, at the time of Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion, Plaintiff was self-represented. Further, Plaintiff had filed an omnibus opposition to multiple motions to quash. After the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion, the court entered a minute order on another motion to quash, admonishing Plaintiff to file separate, distinct oppositions to each motion to quash.
Plaintiff is now represented by counsel. Plaintiff contends that in the related case, Adam R. Kidan v. Chartwell Staffing Solutions, Inc., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01186369 (the “Adan Kidan Action”), the issue of the court’s jurisdiction over Defendant Chipman was also adjudicated on appeal. The court of appeal held that in that related case, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Chipman had purposefully availed himself of the benefits of California in connection with the acquisition and operation of Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc. The court of appeal remanded for additional jurisdictional discovery regarding whether Chipman’s California contacts are sufficiently related to this case to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
Procedurally, the mechanisms under which Plaintiff seeks relief are both deficient.
First, Plaintiff seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b)). The declaration of Plaintiff Tracy Schneider-Kidan, however, fails to detail any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff merely testifies that she recognized that