Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
202100559507CUCD: Furagganan vs. M and K Enterprise 06/03/2026 in Department 43 Motion to Enforce Settlement
The morning calendar in courtroom 43 will normally begin at 8:45. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom. Refer to the Courtroom 43 webpage for more information about remote appearances. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:30 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made.
For Zoom appearances, all counsel appearing by Zoom must email the court at Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/selfrepresented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. The email must identify the person who will make the appearance. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when your matter is called. Additional instructions can be found on the Courtroom 43 webpage. When you log in to Zoom, be sure that your name and the case name are used as your Zoom name. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Coats's secretary, Ms. Brantner at 805- 477-8790, stating that you submit on the tentative. Or you may email Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not advise the Court that you submit on the tentative, or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The agreement contains all the required elements of a valid agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the
202100559507CUCD: Furagganan vs. M and K Enterprise
prevailing party is entitled to fees. The Court awards the amount requested and find it reasonable and supported by evidence.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in relevant part:" " (a) 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." " The court in’Wackeen’v.
Malis"(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 432 (fn.1) stated: “The purpose of section 664.6 ‘is to permit a court, via a summary proceeding, to finally dispose of an action when the existence of the agreement or the terms of the settlement are subject to reasonable dispute, something not permissible before the statute's enactment. [Citation.]’ [Citation]. Prior to its enactment, a party who’sought’to enforce a settlement agreement would file a separate suit or seek permission to file a supplemental pleading in the original suit. [Citation].
Since the enactment of section 664.6, a motion for summary judgment is no longer’required, and thus, the party moving for a judgment on a settlement agreement need not be concerned that triable issues of material fact can prohibit the granting of such a motion. Rather, the trial court, in deciding a section 664.6 motion, can determine disputed facts, either solely on declarations or with oral testimony. [Citation]’” "" "" “Section 664.6 empowers a court to enforce a settlement agreement by way of a summary procedure if certain requirements are satisfied. [Citations].
In order to take advantage of the statute’s expediated procedure, a party must first’establish’the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ [citation] or was made orally before the court.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel"(1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) “Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” "(Critzer v. Enos"(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th’1242, 1256.) ""
II. Application The settlement agreement expressly provides that the Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Paragraph 8 expressly states the agreement is “intended to be fully and formally binding and enforceable” as of May 7, 2025, and paragraph 7 provides that failure to execute a more formal agreement “shall not affect this Stipulation, which shall remain in full force and effect.” These provisions directly contradict Plaintiffs’ primary position that the document was merely a preliminary framework and not enforceable.
Plaintiffs’ argument that agreements to agree are unenforceable is equally unavailing. Here, the stipulation contains all the provisions of a complete agreement: a specific payment amount
202100559507CUCD: Furagganan vs. M and K Enterprise
($300,000), a detailed payment structure ($140,000 upfront within 120 days, $160,000 over five years at 7.5% interest), mutual releases with a Civil Code section 1542 waiver, confidentiality obligations, non-disparagement provisions, and an explicit enforcement mechanism under section 664.6. The document is a valid settlement agreement and not an “agreement to agree.”
The argument that Khorshidi’s payments went to the District Attorney’s Office does not have any relevance to the present issue because a criminal restitution obligation and the civil settlement are separate matters.
Plaintiffs’ hearsay claim that their prior counsel told them the document was not final does not constitute evidence on which the Court may determine that there was mutual mistake or misrepresentation. The claim does not alter the validity of the subject agreement.
Defendants are entitled to fees as the prevailing party pursuant to paragraph 5 of the settlement. The amount, $6,082, is reasonable and supported by counsel’s declaration. The request is granted.
The Court will sign the proposed order and dismiss Defendants M and K ENTERPRISE, LLC, MNDA, INC., Manoutchehr Khorshidi, Kamyar Khorshidi, and Asher Amir with prejudice.
Defendants are ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
3