Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania v. Nextclient.com, Inc.
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Motion type
Causes of action
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
(Chatsworth Courthouse: Dept. F47) August 25, 2026
Date: 8/25/26 Case #19CHCV00416 MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT Motion filed on 4/13/26. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Nextclient.com, Inc. RELIEF REQUESTED: An order enforcing the Settlement Agreement and ordering Defendant Nextclient.com, Inc. to pay Plaintiff $112,751.71. RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY On 5/21/19, Plaintiff Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Nextclient.com, Inc. (Defendant) for breach of contract and common counts. On 8/15/19, Defendants answered the complaint. On 2/25/20, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement resolving all claims in this action. (McCabe Decl., Ex.A).
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties agreed to a total balance due from Defendant payable to Plaintiff in the amount of $105,000.00. The parties further agreed that the balance due was to carry an interest rate of 5% per annum on the unpaid balance and that Defendant was to make monthly payments of $1,135.00 over the course of 117 months (9.75 years) beginning 5/2/20. On 3/4/20, a Stipulation and Order for the Court to Retain Jurisdiction to Enforce the Settlement pursuant to CCP 664.6 was filed.
Defendant began making monthly payments on 6/1/20 and the payments continued until August of 2022. Thereafter, several payments were missed until another payment was made on 1/6/23. The 1/6/23 payment was the last payment Plaintiff received. Defendant has failed and refused to further perform as agreed in the Settlement Agreement.
On 4/13/26, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order enforcing the Settlement Agreement and ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff $112,751.71. No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.
ANALYSIS The proof of service for the motion indicates that on 4/15/26 the motion was mailed to "Lawrence J. Tjan, President" of Defendant, at 25000 Avenue Stanford, Suite 270, Valencia, CA 91355. (See Proof of Service filed 7/24/26). The address of record for Defendant is 25012 Avenue Kearny, Valencia, CA 91355. (See Answer filed 8/15/29 and eCourt). Since there is no opposition or other response to the motion to cure the defect in notice, the motion is placed off calendar.
CONCLUSION The motion is placed off calendar.
Case Number: 25CHCV03967 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 8/25/26 Case #25CHCV03967 MOTION TO SEAL Motion filed on 4/14/26. MOVING PARTY: Defendant The Santa Clarita Community College District RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Dianne Van Hook NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: An order sealing: (1) Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of Nikhil P. Pole in support of the District's Motion to Quash; and (2) portions of the Motion to Quash that quote or reference the exhibit. Exhibit A consists of pertinent portions of the deposition transcript of non-party, Sharlene Coleal. The parties have stipulated that this transcript is designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the protective order previously entered by this Court. RULING: The motion is granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises out of Plaintiff Dianne Van Hook's (Plaintiff) termination as Chancellor of the College of the Canyons/Santa Clarita Community College District (District). After being placed on administrative leave by the District's Board of Trustees, Plaintiff resigned as Chancellor.
On 11/7/25, Plaintiff filed this action against the District and individual Board members, Sebastian Cazares, Joan MacGregor, Jerry Danielson, Edel Alonso and David Andrus (collectively, the Individual Defendants) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract against the District, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against the District, (3) Wrongful Termination By Constructive Discharge against the District, (4) Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy against the District, (5) Wrongful Termination - Age Discrimination (Government Code 12940(a)) against the District, (6) Wrongful Termination - Racial
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”