Lee v. Chun
Filed 2/7/07 Lee v. Chun CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
SUNG OK LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HYUN HO CHUN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B186229 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC287277) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Rolf M. Treu, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Baird Brown, Baird Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Francis S. Ryu, Francis S. Ryu, Jerry J. Chang for Defendants and Respondents.
___________________________________________________
The trial court denied appellant's motion to enforce a judgment entered on a settlement agreement, finding that respondents had already complied with the judgment. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2002, appellant Sung Ok Lee (Lee) sued her sister and brother-in-law, respondents Hyun Ho Chun and Sung Ae Chun (the Chuns), to dissolve a partnership and for an accounting. The parties owned a restaurant in Rowland Heights. Lee sought a 50-50 division of partnership assets between herself and the Chuns. The Chuns cross-complained for declaratory relief. The Chuns alleged that they are not in partnership with Lee, who merely made a personal loan to them and is not a part owner of the restaurant.
In 2003, the parties reached a written settlement agreement. It reads: â€
