Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In September 2023, commercial landlords George and Aftin Andraos sued Arkadi Hayrapetyan and Hollywood Entertainment Lounge, Inc. for unlawful detainer, alleging failure to pay 12 months of rent under a commercial lease the Andraoses had entered into with Hayrapetyan's predecessor in interest. In October 2023 they filed a second, related action for breach of the lease. In April 2024 the parties entered a settlement agreement and stipulation for entry of judgment requiring Hayrapetyan to pay $200,000 in installments over four months, allowing him to retain possession, and setting new rental payment terms. On April 22, 2024, the trial court dismissed the unlawful detainer action with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement. On May 24, 2024, the parties executed a new lease for the property.
After Hayrapetyan failed to make the agreed installment payments, the parties executed an amendment on August 26, 2024 modifying only the payment schedule. On December 4, 2024, the Andraoses sent a notice of default stating that Hayrapetyan was in default of the settlement agreement for a missed $65,000 payment and of the May 2024 lease for unpaid December 2024 rent, giving him seven days to cure and warning that they would enforce judgment under the settlement if he did not. On February 20, 2025, the Andraoses moved for entry of judgment seeking forfeiture of the lease, possession, damages, and attorney fees and costs, including the unpaid $65,000 installment and $15,000 monthly rent for December 2024 through February 2025.
Hayrapetyan opposed, arguing the May 2024 lease—not the settlement—governed the disputed rent, that the notice of default was defective, and that judgment on the outstanding rent would be an unconstitutional predispute contractual jury trial waiver. On March 20, 2025, the trial court granted the motion, awarding the Andraoses forfeiture of the May 2024 lease, possession of the property, $65,000 for the missed installment, $45,000 for the three months of unpaid rent, and $9,378.16 in fees and costs. Judgment entered April 2, 2025, and Hayrapetyan timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed because Hayrapetyan failed to meet his burden of demonstrating error on appeal. Although the court invited supplemental briefing on whether to augment the record with the settlement agreement and the lease, and then augmented the record on its own motion with the Andraoses' motion and exhibits, Hayrapetyan advanced no legal arguments based on the text of those documents beyond noting the lease postdated the settlement.
The court addressed his claim that the trial court exceeded its section 664.6 jurisdiction over the May 2024 lease: the order enforced the settlement agreement, over which retained jurisdiction was undisputed, and the trial court had expressly rejected the argument that the new lease excused compliance, finding nothing in the lease so stated. Hayrapetyan pointed to nothing in either document showing misinterpretation and offered no analysis or authority explaining how the lease superseded the settlement. The court also held he forfeited the argument that the December 4, 2024 notice omitted January and February 2025 rent, because he did not explain with analysis and citation why the settlement limited recovery to the noticed amounts.
Finally, his failure to brief the settlement and lease prevented the court from evaluating the predispute jury trial waiver claim, so it presumed the trial court's findings correct. The court also denied his request, made in his reply brief, to strike the respondents' brief.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on the record presented; failing to develop arguments based on the settlement agreement and lease forfeits the issues and results in affirmance.
- A trial court retaining jurisdiction under section 664.6 enforces the settlement agreement, and a later lease does not displace it unless the appellant demonstrates supersession with specific contractual language and legal authority.
- A notice-of-default challenge fails where the appellant cannot show, with analysis and citation to authority, that the settlement limited recovery to the amounts listed in the notice.
- A predispute jury trial waiver claim requires record-based argument; without it, the appellate court presumes the trial court's findings were correct.
- An appellate court may augment the record on its own motion, but it will not construct an appellant's arguments for him.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision applies settled appellate principles—the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden—to a section 664.6 enforcement judgment. Even where the court augments the record with the settlement agreement and lease, an appellant who does not engage with their text cannot obtain reversal.
Practically, parties who retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 should expect enforcement of the settlement's payment terms notwithstanding a later lease, unless the challenger demonstrates supersession through specific language and authority.