Thomas Dee Engineering Co. v. Khtikian CA1/2

Filed 1/29/16 Thomas Dee Engineering Co. v. Khtikian CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THOMAS DEE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and A146590 Appellant, (Marin County v. Super. Ct. No. CV-1404231) WARREN KENT KHTIKIAN Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff, and Respondent.

Respondent Warren Kent Khtikian has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of appellant Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Inc. in this case arising out of a dispute over attorney fees appellant allegedly owed respondent for his legal representation. Respondent contends appellant has appealed from a non-appealable minute order. We agree, and shall grant the motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2014, appellant filed a complaint against respondent, alleging various causes of action related to respondent’s right to attorney fees during and after respondent’s representation of appellant. On December 2, 2014, respondent filed a cross- complaint against appellant, alleging that appellant had breached the fee agreement and was also liable on several other causes of action. Following a mediation with retired Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw, on February 16, 2015, the parties signed a stipulation for settlement, in which

1

appellant agreed to pay respondent $1.5 million. The stipulation for settlement further required the parties to thereafter execute both a mutual release document and a stipulation requesting the trial court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. When appellant subsequently refused to comply with the terms of the settlement, informing respondent’s counsel “that the express conditions of the settlement had not been met,” respondent filed a motion for entry of judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.1 On October 6, 2014, at the conclusion of a hearing on respondent’s motion, the trial court granted the motion, finding that “no terms remain in dispute. The parties agreed to execute ‘full and complete releases’ and even agreed on the language of the releases through counsel. The parties also agreed to submit a stipulation and order to the court requesting the court retain jurisdiction. Accordingly, neither the conditional nature of the settlement nor the unfulfilled terms provide a barrier to entry of judgment. The settlement agreement only remains conditional because [appellant] refuses to do the ministerial acts required by the express settlement language.” In its minute order, the court ordered the parties to “execute the release contemplated by the settlement agreement” and “to execute a request for the court to retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement. [¶] . . . . [Appellant] may offer alternative language to that proposed by [respondent]. However, if the parties cannot agree on language by October 13, 2015, they shall mediate with Judge Sabraw as provided in the settlement agreement. If the parties still cannot reach agreement, they may submit competing language to the court no later than November 3, 2015, and the court shall decide the language that shall govern and order execution of the documents based on that language.”