DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-UDL-00369·sanmateo·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing todayDENIED

SIU LAN CHAN VS. ANTHONY RENE COLON, JR, ET AL

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
2
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$21,600

Parties

PlaintiffSIU LAN CHAN
DefendantANTHONY RENE COLON

Attorneys

JOANNA KOZUBALfor Plaintiff

Ruling

08/20/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 12 of 12

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026

2:00 PM LINE 5 26-UDL-00369 SIU LAN CHAN VS. ANTHONY RENE COLON, JR, ET AL

SIU LAN CHAN JOANNA KOZUBAL ANTHONY RENE COLON PRO SE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Per CCP 664.6 and for Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation

TENTATIVE RULING: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Siu Lan Chan’s Motion to Enter Judgment Against Defendant Anthony Rene Colon is DENIED. The Stipulation does not authorize entry of judgment for the $21,600 principal balance of unpaid rent sought by Plaintiff, and the Court may not add that substantive term to the parties’ agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff has also failed to present sufficient evidence establishing the amount of recoverable daily damages and costs. Plaintiff may appear at the hearing and make an offer of proof concerning whether the evidentiary deficiencies relating solely to daily damages and costs can be cured by supplemental declarations. The contractual deficiency concerning the requested principal balance is not subject to cure by supplemental evidence.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare, for the Court’s signature, a written order consistent with this ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The parties are directed to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), effective January 1, 2024, concerning the wording of proposed orders.

Posted: 3:00 P.M.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share