Pedro Tostado Diaz et. al v. Luis Santiago et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 09/04/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 17CV320200 Pedro Tostado Diaz et. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT al v. Luis Santiago et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV453642 Williams Herrera MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICTION Arenas v. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 2 Ford Motor Company et al. LINE 3 25CV456971 Toeniskoetter MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS LIEN Constuction, Inc. v. VitroLabs Inc Notice of entry of dismissal filed 8/28/26 – Off Calendar LINE 4 25CV465349 Yiting Zhao et al PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION v. Dr. Yueyue Guo, Lac et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINE 5 25CV476583 Jason Adair MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY v. Elisity, Inc. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Lines 5-8 LINE 6 LINE 7 LINE 8 LINE 9 LINE 10 LINE 11 LINE 12

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Pedro Tostado Diaz, et al. v Luis Santiago et al. Case No. 17CV320200

BACKGROUND

This neighbor-easement dispute has been pending since December 8, 2017. Plaintiffs Pedro Tostado Diaz and Maria Raquel Tostado hold a recorded ingress -and -egress easement over a shared driveway on Defendants Luis and Maria Santiago’s property. The parties resolved the litigation by a Release and Settlement Agreement dated June 26, 2019. A Stipulation Re Settlement was filed on July 30, 2019, and the Court retained jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The Agreement governs use of the driveway easement. As relevant here, Section 1 limits each family to one parked vehicle in a designated marked space alongside the fence. Section 3 permits vehicle washing and maintenance on the driveway for up to four hours, provided the vehicle remains parked alongside the fence as described in Section 1. Section 4 prohibits any party, family member, friend, or guest from placing or storing personal property on the driveway. Section 5 prohibits temporary or permanent barricades or obstructions on the driveway. Section 9 requires a good-faith meet and confer before enforcement. Section 11 provides tiered liquidated damages of $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second, $3,000 for a third, and $4,000 for each fourth and subsequent violation, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party.

The Court has enforced the Agreement three times:

1. July 2, 2020: Plaintiffs were awarded $1,000 in sanctions for a first violation.

2. January 19, 2024: Plaintiffs were awarded $2,000 in liquidated damages, plus $3,638.42 in attorneys’ fees and costs, for a second violation.

3. October 4, 2024: Plaintiffs were awarded $3,000 in liquidated damages, plus $4,638.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs, for a third violation. The Court found the Agreement “clear and unambiguous” and cautioned that “the parties should clearly understand what the Agreement provides going forward.”

Plaintiffs now bring their fourth motion to enforce, seeking liquidated damages for 18 to 22 alleged post-October 4, 2024 breaches, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the Declaration of Gregory C. Simonian in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed on August 2, 2024, a document in this Court’s file. Court records are subject to judicial notice, and a court must take judicial notice of a matter specified in Evidence Code section 452 when the requesting party gives sufficient notice and provides sufficient information. Cal Evid Code § 452, Cal Evid Code § 453. A party seeking judicial notice of material in the same court file must identify the specific material and comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(c). Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306.

Plaintiffs provided the declaration as Exhibit A to their Request for Judicial Notice and identified the filing sought to be noticed. The request satisfies Evidence Code sections 452 and 453. Cal Evid Code § 452, Cal Evid Code § 453.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence and contents of the August 2, 2024 Simonian declaration as a filing in this case, but not for the truth of hearsay matters asserted therein, except to the extent the declaration reflects prior meet-and-confer correspondence independently corroborated in the record.

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Defendants’ opposition includes no formal motion to strike and no separately stated evidentiary objections. Defendants argue that certain facts were improperly raised for the first time in reply. The Court addresses that issue in the merits discussion. To the extent Defendants raise credibility or interpretation issues through the Santiago Declaration, the Court weighs that evidence in the ordinary course.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 authorizes the Court, on motion, to enforce a written settlement agreement signed by the parties where the Court has retained jurisdiction. In ruling on such a motion, the Court may receive evidence, resolve disputed facts, and enter judgment under the settlement’s terms. The Court may enforce the parties’ agreed terms; it may not create material terms for them.

The Agreement satisfies section 664.6. It is in writing, signed by the parties, approved as to form by counsel, and includes an express stipulation for continuing jurisdiction.

MEET-AND-CONFER REQUIREMENT

Section 9 conditions liquidated damages under Section 11 on a good-faith meet and confer, defined as “either an in-person conversation or telephone conversation in which the Parties respectfully identify the issue in dispute and propose one or more resolutions.” The Court has required strict compliance with this condition in prior orders.

Vehicle parking violations. The parking issue —Mr. Santiago parking vehicles outside the designated space and blocking the driveway — was extensively addressed before the third motion. Mr. Simonian’s March 19, April 15, and June 3, 2024 letters addressed parking, vehicle maintenance outside the designated space, and driveway obstruction. Mr. Allen’s June 21, 2024 letter responded to those issues. Defense counsel acknowledged in a July 9, 2024 telephone call that the parties had made “as much progress as possible through the meet and confer process.” The October 2024 Order found those efforts sufficient.

After that order, Mr. Tostado avers that he attempted in-person meet-and-confer discussions with Mr. Santiago, who responded with profanity, dismissiveness, and physical gestures rather than substantive engagement. The current alleged parking violations involve the same conduct previously met and conferred upon and addressed by Court order. Under these circumstances, and given Defendants’ prior acknowledgment that further progress was unlikely, the meet-andconfer requirement is satisfied as to the vehicle -parking and driveway-blocking violations.

Bench-hanging violations. Plaintiffs also challenge Mr. Santiago’s alleged practice of hanging work benches on the fence after washing his vehicle in January, February, and March 2026. Mr. Tostado states that he attempted to address the issue directly with Mr. Santiago and was ignored. Although the October 2024 Order did not specifically address bench-hanging, the Court finds the meet-and-confer showing adequate for this discrete issue because Mr. Tostado raised it in person and was rebuffed, and the broader issue of personal property on or near the driveway and fence has been repeatedly addressed.

MERITS: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

A. Parking Outside Designated Space / Blocking the Driveway

The October 2024 Order was clear: Section 1 permits each family to park one vehicle in its designated marked space alongside the fence. Vehicle maintenance under Section 3 must occur with the vehicle parked in that designated space, not in front of the garage or elsewhere on the driveway.

Mr. Tostado declares, under penalty of perjury, that he photographed Mr. Santiago parking a second vehicle outside the designated space and blocking the driveway on February 11, April 8, April 17, April 30, May 8, May 12, May 15, June 16, June 19, July 3, July 12, July 18, August 20, August 29, September 17, and October 2, 2025. He further declares that Mr. Santiago parked his own truck outside the designated space on September 5 and November 1, 2025.

Defendants respond that the vehicles were present only for loading and unloading, and that a September 2019 text exchange permitted that practice. The argument is not persuasive. Mr. Tostado’s text response stated: “Please follow the court mediation agreement. The use of the easement does not include loading or unloading.” That language did not authorize parking outside the designated space. In any event, the October 2024 Order already rejected the same position. The issue is location, not duration or purpose. The submitted photographs depict vehicles blocking the driveway outside the designated space, not merely momentary active unloading with a driver present.

The Court finds that Defendants repeatedly violated Sections 1, 4, and 5 of the Agreement after the October 4, 2024 Order.

Plaintiffs identify 18 discrete incidents between February and November 2025 supported by date-stamped photographs. Defendants do not deny the photographs; they offer an interpretation the Court rejects. The Court finds 18 violations established:

1. Sixteen incidents involving a second vehicle blocking the driveway outside the designated space, in violation of Sections 1, 4, and 5.

2. Two incidents involving Mr. Santiago’s own truck parked outside the designated space, in violation of Sections 1 and 5.

The Court therefore finds 18 provable violations after the October 4, 2024 Order.

B. Hanging Benches on the Fence

Section 5 prohibits temporary or permanent barricades or obstructions on the driveway and prohibits storage of items on or near the fence demarking the property line with Tract 8155. Plaintiffs contend Mr. Santiago washed his vehicle and hung large work benches on the fence on January 18, February 13–14, and March 1–36, 2026.

Mr. Santiago states the benches are vehicle-washing implements, are used only while washing is in progress, are hung within the confines of his parking space, and are returned to his garage afterward. He further states he stopped hanging them on the exterior fence after Mr. Tostado complained.

The Court finds this issue closer. Section 5’s prohibition on items “stored on or near the fence demarking the property line with Tract 8155” was directed at storage, including items such as plywood. The prior orders did not decide whether temporarily hanging washing implements within the parking-space boundary during an active wash constitutes an obstruction. Given that ambiguity, the Court declines to find an additional breach on this issue.

No additional violation is found based on the bench- hanging allegations.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

Section 11 provides $4,000 per breach for the fourth and each subsequent violation. The three prior enforcement orders supply the predicate violations. Each of the 18 violations found above is therefore a fourth-or-subsequent violation subject to $4,000 in liquidated damages.

Total liquidated damages are $72,000.

Defendants’ penalty argument is rejected. The parties expressly agreed, through counsel, that the liquidated-damages amounts were reasonable compensation for each provable breach. On this section 664.6 motion, the Court enforces the parties’ agreed terms and does not rewrite them.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Section 11 entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs are the prevailing party.

Plaintiffs request $16,254.00 in fees, based on 25.2 hours at $645 per hour, plus $60 in filing costs. Mr. Simonian has practiced in California for approximately 40 years and holds an AV Martindale-Hubbell rating. His billing records are attached as Exhibit C to his declaration, with partial redactions for privileged communications.

Defendants request $5,157.00 in fees, based on 11.46 hours at $450 per hour, on the ground that they are the prevailing parties. Because Defendants do not prevail, their fee request is DENIED.

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ requested hours reasonable in light of the motion’s scope, the number of alleged violations, the photographic evidence, and the need to address the prior enforcement history. The $645 hourly rate is reasonable for counsel of Mr. Simonian’s experience in the San Jose/Silicon Valley market. The Court anticipates awarding an additional amount for hearing time if either party contests this ruling.

Plaintiffs are awarded $16,254.00 in attorneys’ fees and $60.00 in costs.

DISPOSITION

The Court rules as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED IN PART.

3. The Court finds that Defendants Luis Santiago and Maria Santiago committed 18 provable violations of the Release and Settlement Agreement after the October 4, 2024 Order, each constituting a fourth-or-subsequent violation under Section 11.

4. Plaintiffs are awarded $72,000 in liquidated damages against Defendants, jointly and severally.

5. Plaintiffs are awarded $16,254.00 in attorneys’ fees and $60.00 in costs as the prevailing party.

6. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs a total of $88,314.00. To make payment realistic while preserving the full effect of this Order, payment may be made in monthly installments as follows: a. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs not less than $1,000 per month, beginning on October 1, 2026, and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until the total amount of $88,314.00 is paid in full. b. Each installment shall be delivered to Plaintiffs’ counsel, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, and shall be credited first to any outstanding costs and fees and then to liquidated damages, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. c.

The installment schedule does not reduce, compromise, or waive any portion of the $88,314.00 award. The full amount remains ordered, enforceable, and due until paid in full. d. No acceptance of a partial or late payment shall constitute a waiver of Plaintiffs’ right to enforce this Order, unless the waiver is in a written agreement signed by Plaintiffs or their counsel. e. If Defendants fail to make any required monthly installment within 5 day grace period after its due date, Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of the unpaid balance, and the Court may, upon noticed application or other proper procedure, order the entire unpaid balance immediately due and enforceable, together with any additional recoverable fees and costs incurred in enforcing this payment provision. f.

Defendants may prepay all or any part of the outstanding balance at any time without penalty.

7. Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED.

8. The parties are again admonished that the Agreement is clear and unambiguous. Any vehicle parked on the driveway must be parked within the designated marked space alongside the fence. No vehicle may be parked in front of the garage, in the turnabout, or elsewhere on the driveway, regardless of duration or purpose. No personal property may be placed or stored on the driveway. Future violations remain subject to liquidated damages under Section 11, and the Court may consider additional remedies, including contempt, if warranted.

Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo -