Daniel Yun Deng v. Zhuang Deng et al
Filing
82
JUDGMENT by Judge Fred W. Slaughter. The court ORDERS the Settlement Agreement to be enforced against both parties, as follows: (a) Within 30 days of this Judgment, Plaintiff shall dismiss the Chinese action with prejudice and file the necessary proo f of Chinese action's dismissal with prejudice with the Court; (b) Within 90 days of this Judgment, Defendants shall transfer the title to the Burbank Property to Plaintiff, and file the necessary proof of such transfer with the Court. The outstanding Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. (Dkt. 60 ). See document for further information. (jp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
DANIEL YUN DENG, an individual,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
Case No. 2:22-cv-01585-FWS
JUDGMENT
v.
ZHUANG DENG, an individual; LEI
DENG, an individual; JING-SHENG LI,
an individual; JING WANG, an
individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
1
JUDGMENT
2
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, Defendants Lei Deng, Zhuang Deng, Jing-
3
Sheng Li, and Jing Wang (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion to
4
Enforcement Settlement Agreement (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 47.)
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Daniel Yun Deng (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to
5
6
Defendants’ Motion (“Opposition”). (Dkt. No. 54.)
WHEREAS, Defendants filed a reply in support of the Motion (“Reply”)
7
8
(Dkt. No. 55.)
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2023, the court ordered the parties to meet and
9
10
confer further as to the Motion, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, and per the parties’
11
stipulation after the meet and confer process, the Court continued the hearing on
12
Defendants’ Motion to January 2, 2024. (Dkt. No. 56.)
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2024, based on the parties’ joint status report and
13
14
request for additional time to execute the settlement, the court continued the
15
hearing on Defendants’ Motion from January 2, 2024, to March 7, 2024.
16
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2024, the court held a hearing on this matter.
17
Having read and considered the papers and arguments submitted for and
18
against the Motion, all of the pertinent records and documents on file in this case,
19
the accompanying documents filed therewith, as well as Plaintiff’s Objections In
20
Response to Defendants’ Proposed Judgment,1 (Dkt. 74), and Defendants’
21
Responses, (Dkt. 75), the court makes the following findings and orders:
1.
22
On November 8, 2022, the parties attended a mediation before Judge
23
Tevrizian and signed a “Stipulation for Settlement” using a short form in which the
24
parties wrote in handwritten terms, including those terms and conditions set forth
25
in Addendum A to the Stipulation for Settlement. The parties signed the
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s Objections, to the extent they are inconsistent with this Judgment, are
OVERRULED.
-1JUDGMENT
1
Stipulation for Settlement, which included the handwritten terms, and Addendum
2
A (collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”).
3
2.
The Settlement Agreement is a valid and enforceable agreement under
4
California because (1) the parties to the Settlement Agreement had legal capacity
5
to enter into the agreement at issue, (2) the Settlement Agreement is valid and
6
lawful agreement between the parties, (3) substantial evidence demonstrate that
7
both Plaintiff and Defendants consented to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
8
(4) the Settlement Agreement is supported by sufficient consideration by both
9
Plaintiff and Defendants, and (5) the Settlement Agreement is a “complete”
10
agreement in that it contains all materials terms and provides sufficient information
11
regarding the scope of the parties’ respective duties.
12
3.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, within 30 days of the
13
Agreement’s execution, the parties must “execute any documents and/or provide
14
any information to effectuate the mutual releases . . . pursuant to the terms of this
15
agreement, including, but not limited to, any documents necessary to cause the
16
dismissal with prejudice of all pending actions,” other than the instant action.”
17
(Dkt. 47-1 at 14 ¶ 4.) This obligation includes “the dismissal of any and all
18
enforcement actions filed with any court in any jurisdiction in the People’s
19
Republic of China, as well as the filing of any documents necessary to inform any
20
court in the People’s Republic of China, that the Chinese Judgment in this action
21
has been satisfied.” (Id.)
22
4.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, within 60 days of the
23
Agreement’s execution, the parties the parties must “jointly agree to appraise” the
24
Burbank Property. (Dkt. 47-1 at 14 ¶ 2(a).)
25
5.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, within 90 days of the
26
Agreement’s execution, Defendants must transfer title of the Burbank Property to
27
Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s designee. (Dkt. 47-1 at 14 ¶ 2(c)-(d).)
28
-2JUDGMENT
6.
1
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, within 90 days of the
2
recording of the Burbank Property’s transfer, the parties must secure the remainder
3
of the settlement payment, i.e., the difference between the Burbank Property’s
4
appraisal value and $950,000, using a security interest in the Pasadena Property
5
and “cooperate to execute any documents and/or provide any information
6
necessary to secure [the remaining amount].”. (Dkt. 47-1 at 14 ¶ 2(e).)
7.
7
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, within one year of the
8
recording of the Burbank Property’s transfer, Defendants must pay the remaining
9
amount of the Settlement Agreement. (Dkt. 47-1 at 14 ¶ 2(e).)
8.
10
Within four years of Plaintiff receiving title to the Burbank Property,
11
Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s designee must either sell the Burbank Property in an arm’s
12
length sale or agree to a joint appraisal of the Burbank Property with Defendants
13
and pay Defendants 50% of the appraisal value above $950,000. (Dkt. 47-1 at 14 ¶
14
3.)
15
9.
Because the Settlement Agreement is a “complete” agreement, the
16
fact that the parties were unable to execute a long form agreement does not affect
17
the enforceability of the Settlement Agreement.
18
19
20
10.
The court ORDERS the Settlement Agreement to be enforced against
both parties, as follows:
a.
Within 30 days of this Judgment, Plaintiff shall dismiss the Chinese
21
action with prejudice and file the necessary proof of Chinese action’s dismissal
22
with prejudice with the Court;
23
b.
Within 90 days of this Judgment, Defendants shall transfer the title to
24
the Burbank Property to Plaintiff, and file the necessary proof of such transfer with
25
the Court.
26
27
28
-3JUDGMENT
1
11.
The outstanding Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. (Dkt. 60).
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
7
Dated: June 4, 2024
______________________________
Hon. Fred W. Slaughter
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4JUDGMENT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?