DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22STCV15874·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Brandon Hoxey, et al. v. Icehouse Ventures V, LLC, et al.

Ex Parte Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; Sanctions; Attorney Fees

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
407
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$12,700$175,000

Parties

PlaintiffBrandon Hoxey
DefendantIcehouse Ventures V, LLC
DefendantMashcole Property Management, Inc.

Ruling

CASE NO.: 22STCV15874 PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; SANCTIONS, AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES OF $12,700

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 17, 2026, Plaintiff, Brandon Hoxey, filed an ex parte application for an order enforcing the settlement agreement with Defendants, Icehouse Ventures V, LLC and Mashcole Property Management, Inc., pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and entering judgment in Plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff argued relief was necessary because Defendants failed to make any payments under the parties' Settlement Agreement.

On July 22, 2026, the court denied the ex parte application. The court set a hearing to consider the application as a regularly noticed motion and directed Plaintiff to give notice.

On August 13, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition. At the time of this writing, no reply had been filed.

II. DISCUSSION

The court will deny the motion. As Defendants explain in their opposition, Defendants were not required to make any payments until all parties executed the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement states, in relevant part, Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 4-5, infra, the SETTLEMENT PAYMENT will be paid within fourteen (14) days of DEFENDANTS' receipt of the completely executed AGREEMENT. The SETTLEMENT PAYMENT will be made payable to "The Law Offices of Lance M. Filer Client Trust Account" and sent to its address. (Filer Decl., Ex. A, emphasis in original.)

Critically, the copy of the Settlement Agreement submitted by Plaintiff was not signed by all parties. (Id.) By the express terms of the Settlement Agreement, the time for Defendants to perform has not run.

Notwithstanding that defect, Defendants further explain their insurance carrier nevertheless sent a check in the amount of $175,000 on August 11, 2026, as a showing of good faith. (Day Decl., P.P. 8-10.)

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, unless waived.

Dated: August 24, 2026 | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court |

Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: August 24, 2026 TRIAL DATE: September 8, 2026 CASE: Brayan Romero v. Roberto Menjivar, et al.

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