DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2026-01546480·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Rarz Yaron v. Sierra S. Conley

Unknown

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
C23
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Dec 10, 2026

Ruling

10. Rarz Yaron v. Sierra S. Conley 2026-01546480 CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 10,2026, at request of moving party.

11. Contreras vs. Ace Restoration & Construction, Inc. 2022-01247671 Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Carla Contreras (Plaintiff) to enforce settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order enforcing the settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiff and defendants Ace Restoration & Construction, Inc., Cheree Nichelle Fay, and Shelby Lynn Cordova (collectively, Defendants) by entering judgment against Defendants and compelling them to execute valid and properly notarized documents including the required Deed of Trust, appointing an elisor to execute such documents if Defendants fail to comply, and awarding attorney fees and costs against Defendants.

As more fully set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

During 2024 when the parties’ entered into the settlement agreement and Plaintiff dismissed this action, Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a), stated, “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.”

Here, Plaintiff has shown the parties entered into the settlement agreement and agreed it would be enforceable pursuant to section 664.6. Moreover, the parties stipulated and the court agreed to retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Plaintiff also has shown Defendants breached the settlement agreement. Defendants have not filed any opposition to this motion.

The court therefore finds Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of section 664.6 and Defendants breached the agreement warranting this motion to enforce the settlement.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED and the court will enter judgment against Defendants based on the parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to submit a proposed judgment for the court’s signature.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney fees and costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Although the parties’ settlement agreement

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