Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV03146, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03146    Hearing Date: January 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

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Nabor Garcia (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Liliana Rosales Escobar (Defendant) for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on September 3, 2021.

On April 20, 2023, Defendant filed an answer and raised affirmative defenses alleging a settlement agreement between the parties that extinguishes any obligations by Defendant. (See Answer ¶¶ 16–20.) Defendant argues in the instant motion that the parties entered into a settlement agreement on September 26, 2022, before this action was filed.

On August 17, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement because the settlement allegedly occurred prior to this action. (Min. Order, 8/17/23.)

            Defendant now moves to enforce the September 26, 2022 settlement and dismiss this case. Plaintiff opposes.

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, Defendant does not state in the notice of motion the legal basis for the relief she requests. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1010; Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 680] [“As a general rule, the trial court may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion.”].) In her memorandum, Defendant cites to the doctrine of equitable estoppel and Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. In essence, Defendant appears to be arguing a summary judgment motion, without having complied with the procedural requirements of such a motion. As to a motion under section 877.6, Plaintiff is disputing that a settlement agreement existed or is enforceable. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.