Case Number: EC058340??? Hearing Date: April 29, 2016??? Dept: A
Anderson v Worldwide Classic Media
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Calendar: 5
Case No: EC058340
Date: 4/29/16
MP: Plaintiffs, John Anderson and Donna Anderson
RP: Defendant, WCM Inc., James Pressimone, and Joseph Fardella
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order entering judgment pursuant to terms of settlement agreement.
DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the claims of the Plaintiffs, John Anderson and Donna Anderson, that the Defendants, Worldwide Classic Media, James Pressimone, and Joseph Fardella, breached an agreement related to the sale of a media library. The Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint to allege that the Plaintiffs and their attorneys had engaged in fraud and breached fiduciary duties.
The case was dismissed on March 9, 2016.
This hearing concerns the Plaintiff?s motion to enforce the stipulation agreement.
On April 21, 2016, the Defendants filed a request for a continuance. The Defendant?s attorney, M. Hank Etess, states that he has been engaged in the matter of Sierra Madre v. Hildreth and did not have time to make a detailed review of the Plaintiffs? motion. Mr. Etess states that he did not file any opposition because of his limited time and his mistaken belief that his clients did not want him to file opposition papers. Mr. Etess states that his neglect caused the lack of opposition.
Mr. Etess states that he has been attempting to resolve the issues in the motion with the Plaintiffs. Further, in paragraph 5, Mr. Etess states that the Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulated to a continuance to May 20, 2016.
This shows that there is good cause for a continuance to preserve judicial economy because the facts in Mr. Etess would be grounds to set aside any judgment entered under CCP section 473, e.g., Mr. Etess? mistake and neglect would be grounds to set aside any judgment entered under CCP section 664.6. In addition, Mr. Etess states that the parties are attempting to resolve the issues in the motion and the continuance might result in the motion being taken off calendar. Finally, a continuance will ensure that the Defendants? rights are not prejudiced by the failure of their counsel to file opposition papers.
Therefore, the Court will grant the request for a continuance based on the facts in the declaration of Mr. Etess.
RULING:
Continue hearing (May 20, 2016 requested for the new date).