Haggerty Construction's Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
applicable procedures, those arguments go to the merits of the administrative decision and are not properly resolved on demurrer. The First Amended Petition sufficiently pleads facts constituting a "cause" for hearing, and Respondents have not shown that it fails as a matter of law.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-23-003065 - WELLS AVE MODESTO LLC vs HAGGERTY CONSTRUCTION INC - Haggerty Construction's Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint - MOOT. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties entered on May 1, 2026, the hearing on this motion is MOOT.
CV-23-004665 - PAULEEN BAJWA & MCKELLAR ENTERPRISES vs RAS AUTOMOTIVE INC - a) Defendant's Motion for Order Pursuant to C.C.P. 664.6 Adjudicating that Case has Settled and Directing Execution of the Settlement Agreement - DENIED. b) Defendant's Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Supplemental Answer to Complaint - DENIED. c) Plaintiff Pauleen Bajwa & McKellar Enterprises Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication - DENIED.
a) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff Pauleen Bajwa & McKellar Enterprises' unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence and filing of the document, but not the truth of hearsay matters asserted therein except to the extent they constitute statements of a party in this proceeding. (See Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113; Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482-484; Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752-761, as modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 16, 2013); Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271
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?”
Discussion
Defendants' Motion for Order Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 adjudicating that the case has settled and directing execution of a settlement agreement is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 provides a summary procedure for enforcement of a settlement only where the parties stipulate either orally before the court or in a writing signed by the parties. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 664.6(a).)
Defendants rely on a series of text messages exchanged between Defendant Vik Randhawa and Sunny Bajwa in May and June 2024. The text messages submitted do not establish a writing signed by all parties to this action within the meaning of Sec. 664.6. The messages do not contain signatures or other sufficiently clear indicia that all parties adopted the texts as their electronic signatures for purposes of finalizing a settlement under Sec. 664.6. The record also reflects that the messages contemplated future drafting of a settlement agreement by counsel.
In addition, the present record does not establish that all material settlement terms were agreed upon in a form enforceable under Sec. 664.6. The text messages identify, at most, payment of $65,000 and delivery of a generator. The subsequent draft agreement and the parties' later communications reflect disputes concerning additional terms, including release language, dismissal procedures, timing and conditions of performance, and other substantive provisions. The Court may interpret terms to which the parties actually agreed, but it may not create material settlement terms. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)
The Court also notes Defendants' filing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, of which judicial notice has been taken, stated that "[t]he parties were never able to resolve the disagreement over the language of the written settlement document" and that "[t]he agreement is therefore not yet executed." (Pl.'s RJN Ex. A, at pdf p. 9.) Those statements further undermine Defendants' request for relief under Sec. 664.6.
b) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Answer Defendants ask to file a supplemental answer, contending, "The grounds for the motion are that the parties hereto in a series of texts negotiated a settlement of this action in June through November 2024 so that a trial of the original action is no longer appropriate and would be a waste of the courts judicial time." While leave to amend or supplement pleadings is liberally granted, the Court finds that Defendants have not