Pueblo Gardena Homeowners Association v. High Tech Painting & Construction, Inc., et al.

since he simply recites facts that occurred after the default had already been entered. Defendants' counsel was not retained until after the default was entered. Thus, the only facts relayed by him would be relevant for purposes of determining whether Defendants were diligent in moving to set aside the default, and not how and why the default was entered. The Court does note however that Defendants' counsel's statement that the default was entered because former counsel was killed in a boating accident is incorrect. The default was entered due to Defendants' failure to appear at the OSC on August 19, 2025. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Any Default Judgment is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Tuesday, September 1, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Pueblo Gardena Homeowners Association v. High Tech Painting & Construction, Inc., et al.

1. Pueblo Gardena Homeowners Association's Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement

Pueblo Gardena Homeowners Association's Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement is granted.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 14, 2025 and the First Amended Complaint on May 19, 2025. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Defendants conducted negligent work on a construction project on property managed or owned by Plaintiff. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement CCP Sec. 664.6 states: "If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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." Plaintiff contends that the parties entered into a settlement agreement on May 6, 2026. (Decl., Steven J. Revits, 3, Ex. 1). Plaintiff states that Defendant breached the terms of the settlement agreement. According to Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to make the payment due within 30 days of the making of the agreement which is a requirement under the terms of the

agreement. (Id. at P. 3-5). Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees, interest, and costs, pursuant to paragraph 11 of the settlement agreement, is also approved. The Court notes that Defendant failed to file any written opposition to the motion. Therefore, the Court determines that Plaintiff has met its burden to establish that a breach of the settlement agreement exists such that a judgment, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, may be ordered. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion To Have Judgment Entered Pursuant To Settlement Agreement is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Case Number: 25TRCV03462 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Department M Tuesday - September 1, 2026 Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Ivan M. Lopez Ventura v. Matt Haydis, et al. 25TRCV03462 1. Ivan M. Lopez Ventura's Motion for Attorneys' Fees TENTATIVE RULING Ivan M. Lopez Ventura's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted, in part.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 10, 2025. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff alleges that a neighboring tenant is causing excessive noise. Plaintiff filed suit against the neighbor and the landlord alleging 14 causes of action. Defendant Matt Haydis filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Plaintiff is thwarting Defendants' attempt to sell the property. On February 9, 2026, Defendant's motion to expunge lis pendens was granted. On April 21, 2026, Cross-Defendant Ivan M. Lopez Ventura's special anti-SLAPP motion to strike was granted.

Motions for Attorneys' Fees Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16(c)(1) states: "Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5."