Orlando Garcia v. Nadar Lucky 7 Inc.

(Compton Courthouse: Dept. A) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT A LAW AND MOTION RULINGS INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must: 1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and 3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u i/main.aspx’casetype=civil

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT ORLANDO GARCIA, Plaintiff, vs. NADAR LUCKY 7 INC., Defendant. |)))))))))))))))) | CASE NO: 23CMCV01379 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Dept. A DATE: August 31, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. COMPLAINT FILED: 08/25/2023 DISPOSED: 08/22/2025 | MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Orlando Garcia RESPONDING PARTY: None 1.

Background

This is an ADA compliance action. Plaintiff Orlando Garcia ("Plaintiff") alleged that defendant Nadar Lucky 7 Inc. ("Defendant") owned the property located at 11508 Wilmington Ave., Los Angeles, CA (the "Property") at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleged that the Property was noncompliant with ADA requirements. On August 22, 2025, the court dismissed this action in connection with a settlement agreement and retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6.

2.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to perform under the settlement agreement. Defendant has not opposed this motion. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 provides: "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."

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.¿ (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37 (Sully-Miller).)¿ To enforce a written settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties, an attorney who represents the party, or an agent

authorized by an insurer to sign on the party's behalf.¿ (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98; Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 664.6.) Plaintiff has stated that Defendant failed to comply with the settlement agreement by failing to make payments. However, Plaintiff has not clearly stated, in the notice of motion or motion, what payment obligations Defendant possessed and breached. Moreover, Plaintiff's settlement agreement is provided only in redacted form, with the actual payment terms unavailable for the court's review.

Plaintiff filed a motion to seal the settlement agreement alongside the instant motion, but the motion to seal has been denied. Although Plaintiff contends that the unredacted settlement agreement was lodged with the court, no notice of lodging was filed and the court has no record of receipt of any lodged document nor does it have it in the court's possession. Plaintiff has therefore violated California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. The court will accordingly decline to enforce the settlement agreement.

3.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 31, 2026 Hon. Elizabeth L. Bradley Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->