Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV22871, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22871    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

Counsel for Plaintiffs Janeth Malo and Ashley Leyva (“Plaintiffs”) now move to enforce a purported settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 with Defendant The Estate of John Shing Lee (“Defendant”).

This motion was originally scheduled to be heard on January 18, 2024. Counsel for defendant submitted on the Court’s tentative ruling. Counsel for Plaintiffs was registered to appear but did not. Plaintiffs appeared in Court indicating they wished to contest the motion. Since Plaintiffs’ counsel did not appear and failed to contact the Court, the motion was placed off calendar. Plaintiffs’ counsel then filed this motion on January 22, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “if parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”  “Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.”  (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)  A writing is signed by a “party” if signed by any of the following: “(1) The party; (2) An attorney who represents the party; or (3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)    

To be enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, any written settlement agreement outside of court must be signed. An agreement to settle under section 664.6 cannot be enforced unless it is signed by all of the litigating parties to the agreement. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) Although the Court may adjudicate disputes over the terms of the settlement agreement, the Court may not modify terms from what was agreed to by the parties. (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 797.) 

DISCUSSION

Counsel for Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiffs and Defendant signed a Settlement Conference Officers’ Proposal to Settle (“Proposal”) on June 7, 2023. The Agreement stated that counsel for Defendant “shall prepare a Separate Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims, which must be consistent with the terms and conditions of this Settlement Conference Officers’ Proposal and which must be approved by counsel for Plaintiffs to form. The agreement shall be submitted by counsel for Estate of John Shing Lee, Deceased, to counsel for Plaintiffs not later than June 9, 2023.”

(Barrantes Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1, Proposal ¶ 8.)

Plaintiffs signed the Proposal on June 7, 2023. Defendant accepted the Proposal and signed on June 7, 2023. (Ibid.)

“In order for acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal ‘must be sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance promised is reasonably certain.’ [citation.] A proposal ‘cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the terms of the contract are reasonably certain. The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining...the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.’ [citation.] If, by contrast, a supposed ‘contract’ does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, there is no contract. [citation.]” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811.)  

Here, identical settlement proposals were accepted and signed by the parties. In the Proposal, “Defendant (or Defendant’s insurer) shall pay a total of $375,000.00 to Plaintiffs Janeth Malo and Ashley Leyva, jointly and severally, within 14 calendar days of Plaintiffs signing a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims.” (Agreement ¶ 1.) In exchange, “Plaintiffs and Defendant shall each generally release the other . . . from all liabilities, causes of actions, charges, complaints, claims, obligations, costs, losses, damages, injuries, attorney’s fees, court costs, penalties, fines, and all other legal responsibilities of any form whatsoever, arising from all claims and causes of action, whether known or unknown.” (Id. ¶ 3.)

Additionally, the proposal states: “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of [Civil Code section 1542], this settlement shall constitute full settlement of all disputes, claims, and causes of action between Plaintiffs Janeth Malo and Ashley Leyva and Defendant Estate of John Shing Lee, Deceased.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

Based on the above, and upon reviewing the Proposal, the Court finds the terms to be sufficiently definite to constitute an agreement. The Court enters judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement and dismisses the case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file and serve a proposed judgment within 10 days.

            Plaintiffs shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.