Michael J. Hernandez and Irene Hernandez v. FCA US LLC

(Pomona Courthouse South: Dept. G) September 11, 2026 DEPARTMENT G LAW AND MOTION RULINGS The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

and Irene Hernandez's Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Attorney's Fees Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Plaintiffs Michael J. Hernandez and Irene Hernandez's Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a Song-Beverly action arising out of the purchase of an allegedly defective motor vehicle. On May 23, 2022, plaintiffs Michael J. Hernandez and Irene Hernandez (collectively, the Hernandezes) allegedly purchased an SUV manufactured by defendant FCA US LLC (FCA). On December 4, 2024, the Hernandezes filed the Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and (3) unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

On March 12, 2026, the parties informed the court that they settled the case. On May 11, 2026, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and/or enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. On July 27, 2026, the Hernandez Plaintiffs filed this motion to enforce settlement, which is unopposed. On August 25, 2026, the court continued the hearing after FCA represented that it sent the settlement check to the wrong firm. On September 3, 2026, the Hernandez Plaintiffs dismissed the action with prejudice. The motion is set for a continued hearing on September 11, 2026.

ANALYSIS

The Hernandez Plaintiffs move to enforce the terms of the out-of-court written settlement agreement. For the following reasons, the motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

The Code of Civil Procedure provides a summary procedure that enables courts to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement. It states, "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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6, subd. (a).)

A writing is considered signed if signed by the party or an attorney who represents the party. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6, subd. (b).) "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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 664.6, subd. (a).)

Discussion

The Hernandez Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a judgment because FCA failed to pay $20,000.00 as agreed in their settlement agreement. The court agrees.

A settlement agreement is a contract, and like any contract, it is enforceable only according to its terms. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810, holding, "The court cannot create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon."].)

Oral settlements placed on the record under Section 664.6 and written settlements under Section 998 are binding, enforceable, and governed by ordinary contract principles. (See Canaan Taiwanese Christian Church v. All World Mission Ministries (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1122, fn. 3; see also Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721, 731.)

In contract law, when a party's failure to perform a contractual obligation constitutes a material breach of the contract, the other party may be discharged from its obligation to perform under the contract. (See Brown v. Grimes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 265, 277.) The two obligations must also be dependent, meaning that the parties specifically bargained that the failure to perform the one relieves the obligation to perform the other.

While materiality is generally a question of fact, whether covenants are dependent or independent is a matter of construing the agreement. (See id. at 277-279.) If there is no extrinsic evidence in aid of construction, the question is one of law for the court. (See Verdier v. Verdier (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 325, 333.)

Here, the parties entered into a release agreement outside of the court's presence and affirmed the agreement in the court's presence. (See Kreymer Decl., Exh. A, p. 8; see also 5/11/2026 Min. Order, p. 1.) Under the release agreement, FCA agreed to pay the Hernandez Plaintiffs a total of $20,000.00, which was "expected" to be completed within 90 days the parties executed the agreement. (Kreymer Decl., Exh. A, p. 7.)

As documented in the court's Minute Order, FCA should have paid the Hernandez Plaintiffs in mid-June 2026. (See 5/11/2026 Min. Order, p. 1.) Nevertheless, FCA failed to tender payment. (See Mot., p. 3.) At the first hearing on this motion, FCA represented that it sent the settlement check to the wrong firm. (See 8/25/2026 Min. Order, p. 1.)

FCA did not file an opposition contesting the merits of the motion or the Hernandez Plaintiffs ' entitlement to attorney's fees for bringing the motion. (See Sexton v. Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410, applying a local rule to hold that "[t]he failure to file opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.")

Therefore, the motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED, and JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of the Hernandez Plaintiffs. FCA is ORDERED to PAY the Hernandez Plaintiffs $20,000.00 pursuant to the settlement agreement plus $3,210.00 in sanctions.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED, and defendant FCA US LLC is ORDERED to PAY sanctions to plaintiffs Michael J. Hernandez and Irene Hernandez in the total amount of $3,210.00. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of plaintiffs Michael J. Hernandez and Irene Hernandez and against defendant FCA US LLC in the total amount of $20,000.00.

Case Number: 26PSCV00472 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: G Plaintiffs Ling Fong and Diana Fong's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Sustaining the Demurrer Respondent: Defendants NewRez, LLC and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. Plaintiffs Ling Fong and Diana Fong's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and to Enter a Different Judgment Respondent: Defendants NewRez, LLC and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Ling Fong and Diana Fong's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Sustaining the Demurrer is DENIED. Plaintiffs Ling Fong and Diana Fong's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and to Enter a Different Judgment is DENIED.