Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (CCP 664.6)
Month June 8, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 12 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM 25-UDL-00726 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS. HELLOYSA MORAES DOS SANTOS, ET AL. LINE 9
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC CHRIS A. ROUSSEAU HELLOYSA MORAES DOS SANTOS
PLAINTIFF EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION (CCP 664.6)
TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Equity Residential Management LLC moves to enter judgment against Plaintiffs Helloysa Moraes Dos Santos and Juliane Karen Dos Santos pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement authorizing the Court to do so under Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, without prejudice.
Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6(a) provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Upon stipulation of the settling parties, “the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance [is complete].” Id.
In ruling on a motion under § 664.6, the court may receive oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.
“If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Hines v. Luke (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182
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?”
Here, the parties agreed to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement on May 27, 2025. Wahab Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation. Paragraph 10 of the Stipulation states that “The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Stipulation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.”
Under the Stipulation, Defendants agreed to pay $6,642.97 in principal owed to Plaintiff and $1,9500.00 in attorney’s fees and court costs, for a total of $8,592.97. Wahab Decl., Ex. 2 ¶ 4. Defendants agreed to make payments of $716.08 on the 15th of each month, beginning June 15, 2025, and continuing each month until the balance is paid in full. Id., Ex. 2 ¶ 4.
In April 2026, Defendants failed to pay the monthly installment payment of $716.08, in violation of the Stipulation. Wahab Decl. ¶ 10. Up to that point, Defendants had paid $7,188.00, leaving a remaining balance of $1,404.97. Id. ¶ 12, Ex.
3.
Month June 8, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 13 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation states, in pertinent part:
In the event of noncompliance, Plaintiff shall give 24-hour telephonic notice to the Defendant(s) at the following phone number: (612) 391-5175 and (650) 309-7405, and file a declaration of Non-Compliance. Plaintiffs declaration shall request the lease be forfeited and judgment shall enter for Plaintiff for possession against Defendant(s) and all unknown occupants and the balance of any sums owing under this stipulation, plus holdover damages, if any. Wahab Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8, Ex.
2.
Plaintiff served Defendants with notice of this motion as required in the additional Court orders in the Stipulation. However, Plaintiff’s declaration fails to establish that 24-hour notice by telephone was provided to Defendants prior to filing this motion, as required in Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. That is a separate notice requirement contractually agreed to by the parties, which cannot be waived by the Court. The Court notes that a declaration was filed on April 28, 2026 (after the filing of the motion) that was intended to comply with paragraph 6 in advance of the plaintiff’s separate ex parte request for possession.
The Court further notes that there is some ambiguity as to how Paragraph 6 applies to this motion. But plaintiff itself appears to acknowledge that it applies in some manner to this motion as it cites to it. And there is no question that no Paragraph 6 compliant declaration was filed prior to the filing this motion.
And the declaration filed on April 28, 2026 also does not indicate Plaintiff’s intention to seek a monetary judgment.
Finally, the Court notes that it appears that plaintiff’s stipulation was intended to provide for an ex parte monetary judgment, which is not allowed. It is the non-compliant, likely standard language, of paragraphs 6 and 7 of that stipulation, which (the Commissioner struck and) assumes that a monetary judgment and possession will be granted in a single ex parte proceeding, that is the cause of the ambiguity. Had the standard stipulated settlement agreement separated out the ex parte process for obtaining possession from the noticed motion process for receiving a monetary judgment, there would not have been an issue. In other words, the separate declaration in advance of this motion would not have been required had the stipulation not required it.
The power of the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is limited. “Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” Hernandez v. Board of Education (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1176 (citation omitted). “The court is powerless to impose on the parties more restrictive or less restrictive or different terms than those contained in their settlement agreement.” Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, without prejudice.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.