Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV15370, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15370    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement.

BACKGROUND

This is an employment discrimination case filed by Plaintiff Enrique Martinez (“Plaintiff”) against his former employers, Defendants Marathon Industries, Inc. and Marathon Fleet Repair Services, Inc. (“Defendants”).

Plaintiff brings a motion to enforce Defendants’ signed acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer. Defendants oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (“Section 998”) provides, in pertinent part:

(b) Not less than 10 days prior to commencement of trial or arbitration (as provided in Section 1281 or 1295) of a dispute to be resolved by arbitration, any party may serve an offer in writing upon any other party to the action to allow judgment to be taken or an award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions stated at that time. The written offer shall include a statement of the offer, containing the terms and conditions of the judgment or award, and a provision that allows the accepting party to indicate acceptance of the offer by signing a statement that the offer is accepted. Any acceptance of the offer, whether made on the document containing the offer or on a separate document of acceptance, shall be in writing and shall be signed by counsel for the accepting party or, if not represented by counsel, by the accepting party.

 (1) If the offer is accepted, the offer with proof of acceptance shall be filed and the clerk or the judge shall enter judgment accordingly.

A Section 998 offer must be written and sufficiently clear to result in the entry of judgment or another final disposition of the action. Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721, 731-732.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to enforce the signed Section 998 offer, which is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Armond M. Jackson. Relevant here, the Section 998 offer states that Defendants will pay Plaintiff in exchange for “the execution and transmittal of a release of all current claims in this underlying litigation by Plaintiff in favor of all the Defendants in this action in full settlement of this action.” Jackson Decl., Ex. B, ¶ 2. While Defendants signed the offer, the parties remain unable to agree on the terms of the release. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that they have not settled their case.

Notably, the Court previously found that the parties did not settle and set the case for trial. Minutes entered 1/31/24. Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the Court setting the case for trial. Indeed, after Plaintiff received the signed Section 998 offer and the parties exchanged emails about the release, the parties entered into a stipulation to continue the trial to enable the parties to “resolve their dispute regarding the scope of a release in this action that would constitute a complete settlement of this action.” Stipulation filed 11/27/2023. Thus, the parties clearly have not settled the issue of the scope of the release and therefore the case.

The Court further finds that the parties expressly invoked Section 998 as the settlement procedure, and not Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The settlement has failed because the parties have not agreed to the material terms of a release or attorneys’ fees, which means that the accepted offer lacks all the content needed to form a final judgment under either statutory section.

Hence, the Court finds that the parties have not mutually agreed to settle upon fully finalized terms.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.