Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV09676, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09676    Hearing Date: August 17, 2023    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

MOTION

Plaintiff Mark Mason-Johnson (“Plaintiff”) sued defendant Brilliant Corners (“Defendant”) for intentional tort in connection with a physical altercation that occurred on October 15, 2021.

            On July 25, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 10, 2023, Defendant filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.” (CCP § 664.6(a).)

“We note that even if the terms of the judgment could be extended, a court’s power to make factual determinations under section 664.6 is generally limited to whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. (See Corkland v. Boscoe, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at p. 994.) The power would not appear to extend, at least under the facts of this case, to whether one party had breached the terms of the agreement. Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or whether they are not.” (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209 fn. 4.)

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

            Defendant provided a supplemental declaration in conjunction with its reply. Generally, new evidence is not permitted on reply unless it fills in gaps in the evidence created by the opposing party’s opposition and is not raising new substantive issues for the first time; otherwise, a further hearing would be required to permit the opposing party to respond. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.) Thus, to the extent the new evidence submitted does not respond to issues raised in the opposition, the Court declines to consider it.

ANALYSIS

The Court finds that the parties have entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. Defendant provided a copy of the settlement agreement with its moving papers, which appears to be fully executed by the parties (the “Settlement Agreement”). (Murphy Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff does not dispute that he signed the agreement.

Plaintiff contends that he signed the Settlement Agreement under duress, based on a purported representation from Defendant’s counsel that the most Plaintiff could get if this matter went to trial was $1,500. (Opp., 2:8.) “The doctrine of economic duress ‘may come into play upon the doing of a wrongful act which is sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the perpetrator's pressure. [Citations.]” (Perez v. Uline, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 953, 959, quoting Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1158). “But courts ‘are reluctant to set aside settlements and will apply ‘economic duress’ only in limited circumstances and as a ‘last resort.’” (Id. at 959.) Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant’s counsel made a representation regarding the value of Plaintiff’s claim is insufficient evidence of a wrongful act, as Plaintiff has not presented evidence that such a claim was knowingly false when made. (See id. at 1159.) In other words, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Defendant knew there was a legitimate dispute or that Defendant was liable for the full amount, or that Defendant refused to pay in bad faith. (Id.) Therefore, the Court will not avoid enforcement of the Settlement Agreement on the grounds of duress.

As for attorney’s fees, the Court notes the Settlement Agreement provides: “Should the federal court decline to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcement, the parties agree that this agreement is enforceable in a separate proceeding. The prevailing party of any enforcement action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses from the losing party.” (Murphy Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 11.6.) As no enforcement action has been filed, Defendant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees on this motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement and dismiss action. The Court dismisses the action with prejudice and vacates all dates.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees.

Defendant to provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.