Motion to set aside dismissal
(Glendale Courthouse: Dept. D) August 14, 2026 DEPARTMENT D LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
Calendar: 11 Date: August 14, 2026 Case No: 20GDCV00230 Trial Date: n/a Case Name: Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc. v. El Chilerito Spice Co Inc., et al. MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 664.6 [CCP Sec. 664.6] Moving Party: Plaintiff, Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc. Responding Party: Defendant, El Chilerito Spice Co. Inc., Jorge Reyes, Silvia Reyes [Unopposed] RELIEF REQUESTED: Set aside dismissal entered on August 6, 2021 CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint 1) Breach of Lease Agreement 2) Breach of Guaranty 3) Account Stated CAUSES OF ACTION: from Cross-Complaint 1) Negligence 2) Rescission 3) Unfair Business Practices Under Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 4) Fraudulent Concealment
SUMMARY OF FACTS: On August 18, 2018, Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc. ("Plaintiff") and El Chilerito Spice Co., Inc. ("El Chilerito") entered into a written lease agreement for certain equipment. The Complaint alleges that on November 15, 2019, El Chilerito defaulted on the agreement by failing to make the payment due, or any payments due thereafter.
ANALYSIS: "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 Sec. 664.6, subd. (a).)
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement "must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth 'in a writing signed by the parties' (Sec. 664.6) or was made orally before the court." (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a "writing signed by the parties" sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)
Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal entered in this action and return the case to the Court's active calendar. Plaintiff asserts that the parties entered into a settlement agreement on May 24, 2021, with the Court retaining jurisdiction under CCP 664.6. (Iezza Decl., P.P. 2-3.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to make any payments pursuant to the settlement agreement. (Iezza Decl., P. 4.) However, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a copy of the signed settlement agreement.
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?”
Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is a prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement. (Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242,1262.) The signed-writing requirement furnishes unequivocal proof of the parties' intent to enter a binding settlement. (Id., at p. 1253.) Without evidence of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot make the threshold determination that a valid and enforceable agreement exists, nor can it interpret the agreement's terms and conditions to determine whether the relief Plaintiff seeks is warranted.
Thus, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the motion upon submitting competent evidence of a valid and enforceable settlement agreement.
RULING: Plaintiff Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc.'s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal is DENIED, without prejudice.
DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE VIDEO APPEARANCES If you wish to appear remotely on LACourtConnect, you may register by visiting www.lacourt.ca.gov to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.
Case Number: 21STCV39123 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: D TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 10 Date: August 14, 2026 Case No: 21STCV39123 Trial Date: n/a Case Name: Reynaga v. Lin, et al. MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT [CCP Sec. 473] Moving Party: Plaintiff, Gonzalo Pina Reynaga Responding Party: Defendants, Helen M. Lin, Eric S. Lin, Barbara Kenmore, Barbara Kenmore Properties, Business Barbara Kenmore [Unopposed] Deficiencies to Note: Filed as a motion to set aside, but is substantively a motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration. No proof of service. RELIEF REQUESTED: Set aside the judgment entered in this case. CAUSES OF ACTION: from Form Complaint 1) General Negligence 2) Premises Liability
SUMMARY OF FACTS: Gonzalo Pina Reynaga ("Plaintiff") alleges that he was tenant at 13103 Barbara Ann Street, Unit 11, North Hollywood, CA 91605 which was owned and maintained by Helen M. Lin, Eric S. Lin, Barbara Kenmore, Barbara Kenmore Properties, and Business Barbara Kenmore (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that while attempting to clear a clogged garbage disposal in his unit with his right hand, he accidentally placed his left hand on exposed electrical wires on the adjacent wall. Plaintiff alleges that the electrical shock from the wires caused him to fall, strike his head, and sustain injuries.
On April 22, 2025, a jury was impaneled in this matter and the parties gave opening statements. Defendants moved for nonsuit. The Court granted the motion. On May 19, 2025, the Court entered judgment for Defendants and mailed notice of entry of judgment to the parties. On May 20, 2025, Defendants served notice of entry of judgment.
ANALYSIS: Procedural "Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing." (CCP, Sec. 1005 subd. (b) "Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five calendar days before the time appointed for the hearing." (CRC rule 3.1300, subd. (c).) Here, there is no proof of service showing that the motion was ever served on Defendants. Accordingly, the