Tran vs. Ali Sadeghi M.D. Inc.

7. Tran vs. Ali Sadeghi Motion to Enforce Settlement M.D. Inc. Plaintiff Hannah Khanh Tran’s motion to enforce settlement is 25-01509640 GRANTED, in the amount of $126.04 in unpaid interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 [authorizing motion]; Ex. A to moving papers, §§ 2, 15.) Moving party is also granted $2,910.00 in fees and costs. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361 [fees/costs authorized if provided for in settlement agreement]; Ex. A to moving papers, § 15.)

Moving party has shown that one of the two initial payments due, in the amount of $20,000.00, was not paid by its initial due date, nor by the 4-7-26 deadline imposed by moving party’s notice and demand to cure. (Park Decl., ¶¶ 2-5; Ex. A to moving papers, § 2 [payment schedule]; Ex. B to moving papers, 3-31-26 Park email [“If payment is not in the Westminster office by April 7 close of business, my client will exercise the acceleration clause in Paragraph 14 and also seek her attorney’s fees pursuant to Paragraph 15”].)

The missing $20,000.00 payment was received on 4-10-26, and the remaining payments were all paid on or before their respective due dates. (Ex. A to moving papers, § 2 [payment schedule]; Sadeghi Decl., ¶¶ 6-7; Naddour Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Hattendorf Reply Decl., ¶ 4 [acknowledging receipt of payments on 4-10-26, 5-18-26, 6-15-26, and 7-13-26].) Accordingly, the full settlement amounts have been paid.

Moving party seeks interest on the entire unpaid balance, due to the acceleration clause. (Ex. A to moving papers, § 14 [default and acceleration]; see also Hattendorf Reply Decl., ¶ 6.) However, as to interest, the settlement agreement provides: “Interest on any unpaid amounts shall accrue at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date such amounts were originally due until paid in full.” (Ex. A to moving papers, § 15; emphasis added.) Only the first $20,000.00 payment was late; all other payments were made on or before the date they were “originally” due. Thus, moving party is entitled to interest on the missed $20,000.00 payment for the period of 3-18-26, when it was “originally due,” until 4-10-26, when it was “paid in full,” i.e. 23 days. The court calculates this amount as $126.04, based on daily interest at 10% per annum ($5.48 per day).

Moving party is also granted $2,910.00 in fees and costs, which amount the court finds were reasonably and necessarily incurred. The court has reduced the hourly rates to $300.00/hour for attorney Yerzinkian, $450.00/hour for attorney Hattendorf, and $600.00/hour for attorney Park, which are more commensurate with prevailing rates

in the Orange County market. (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 700 [“market rate” fee determination “is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located”]; Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 883, 899 [“a trial court has its own expertise in the value of legal services performed in a case ... and it may rely on its own familiarity with the local legal market in setting the hourly rate”].) The court has also reduced the hours for motion preparation, which appear to the Court to be slightly excessive for this relatively straightforward motion.

Moving Plaintiff shall give notice.