Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
To be clear: The court does not doubt that responding to discovery (of any type or quantity) will be particularly difficult and stressful for Objectors given their advanced age and consequent infirmities. However, Objectors have refused the appointment of a GAL; they have not requested any specific accommodations; they have not requested to limit the amount of discovery; and they have not pointed to any particular discovery request as unduly burdensome.
In short, Objectors have not met their burden of showing good cause for a protective order that exempts them from responding to discovery altogether.
Based on the foregoing, Objectors' motion for protective is DENIED.
No Order Compelling Further Responses
Objectors state that prior to filing this motion, they timely served "blanket objections" to the subject discovery. In her Opposition to this motion, Petitioner argues that certain objections made (e.g., on the grounds of relevancy, formation, and privilege) lack merit. Neither Objectors nor Petitioner provided the court with a copy of Objectors' discovery responses.
To the extent Objectors objected to any interrogatory or request on the grounds that any and all written discovery propounded on them is overly burdensome in light of their advanced age, then such objection lacks merit for reasons stated hereinabove. However, the court makes no finding as to the merits of any other objection made in response to any particular interrogatory or request.
To obtain an order compelling further responses, Petitioner must meet and confer and file a motion.
Please note: Effective 1/1/26, meeting and conferring regarding discovery must be conducted in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040 and 2023.010(i).)
Counsel for Petitioner is ordered to serve notice of ruling on this motion.
01004237 Griffin – Probate TENTATIVE RULING
Case: Griffin – Probate 01004237
Calendar No: 2 Date: 08/05/26
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (ROA 165)
Before the court is a motion by Adan Gama Puffelis, in propria persona, for an order to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
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?”
The court notes that there is no proof of service of this motion, and no opposition has been filed. There is a Fed Ex receipt attached to the end of the motion, but it does not reflect what was mailed inside the package or to whom the package was mailed. The motion could be denied on such basis alone.
Probate Code section 664.6 provides, as follows:
“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.”
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 allows a party to obtain a judgment containing all materials terms of a settlement agreement not yet fully performed by the parties. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185; Kilpatrick v. Beebe (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1527, 1529 [Section 664.6 “do[es] nothing more than provide a streamlined method for reducing a stipulated settlement to judgment.”].)
Here, there appears to be no reason to enter a judgment based on the settlement agreement, as it was already made a court order. (ROA 125.) Specifically, the parties agreed in writing that Mr. Puffelis would resign as Administrator and that Lois Lee Meyer would be appointed as Executor. Ms. Meyer filed a Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement. (ROA 91.) On 9/14/22, the court approved the Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement and appointed Ms. Meyer as Executor. (ROA 125.) Letters appointing Ms. Meyer were issued on 9/30/22. (ROA 135.) Thus, there is no part of the settlement agreement that remains to be enforced.
In the instant motion, Mr. Puffelis states that Dusty West, who is a party to the settlement agreement, is interfering with Ms. Meyer’s administration of the estate. He claims that Ms. West is isolating Ms. Meyer and unduly influencing Ms. Meyer. He further claims that Ms. West has wrongfully taken
possession of estate property. Mr. Puffelis is also requesting an accounting. Orders addressing these concerns must be sought by petition, not motion. (See Probate Code §§ 850 and 17200 and Welfare and Institutions Code sections 15600 et seq.)
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied as procedurally defective. This ruling is made without prejudice to Mr. Puffelis’s right to seek the relief requested in a procedurally appropriate manner.
01094693 Schwarz - TENTATIVE RULING Probate Case: Schwarz - Probate 01094693
Calendar No: 3 Date: 08/05/26
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON BOND (ROA 163)
Travelers Casualty and Surety Bond Company of America ("Travelers") moves for judgment against Administrator Maximillian Schwarz ("Administrator"), the former administrator of the Estate of Jon Michael Schwarz in the amount of $80,000.00, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 882 and 883.
Code of Civil Procedure section 882(b) provides the legal basis for the requested judgment. It states as follows:
If two or more judgment debtors are jointly liable on a money judgment:
(b) If the judgment is based upon an obligation of one judgment debtor as surety for another and the surety satisfies the judgment or any part thereof, whether voluntarily or through enforcement procedures, the surety may compel repayment from the principal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 883 provides the procedural mechanism for obtaining the judgment requested. It states as follows:
(a) A judgment debtor entitled to compel contribution or repayment pursuant to this chapter may apply on noticed motion to the court that entered the judgment for an order determining liability for contribution or repayment. The application shall be made at any time before the judgment is satisfied in