Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV22974, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22974    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Willie A. Wheeler (“Wheeler”), Lola N. Jackson (“Lola”), Daniel Jackson (“Jackson”), and Elijah Boswell (“Boswell”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Yat N. Lee and Pik K. Wong (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  On June 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case providing that the parties had entered into a conditional settlement and that a request for dismissal would be filed no later than August 12, 2022.  Thereafter, at an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal heard on September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented additional time was needed to finalize the releases and requested a continuance.  The hearing was continued to November 15, 2022.  At the November 15, 2022 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented they were having difficulty contacting their clients, and the hearing was again continued to January 27, 2023. 

On December 8, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6.  The motion is unopposed. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs agreed to the terms of a settlement at mediation, and that Plaintiffs signed releases sent to them by, and returned them to, Defendants.  (Mot. Exh B.)  Defendants provide the matter was settled for the total amount of $15,000.00 as follows: $4,500 for Lola, $9,000 for Wheeler, $1,300 for Daniel, and $200 for Boswell.  (Mot. Exh. A.)  Defendants state the quality of the signed releases is poor, but Defendants provide copies of the original releases sent to Plaintiffs.  Defendants argue that despite the quality of the signed releases, the settlement agreement is fully enforceable.  Defendants request that the Court enter judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants. 

2. Motion to Enforce Judgment

Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 provides a mechanism by which a party can seek to enforce a settlement in an expedited fashion, as opposed to filing, for example, a breach of contract action.  Pursuant to CCP § 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.”

For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

(CCP §664.6(b).)

As CCP § 664.6 provides an expedited procedure for enforcement of a settlement agreement, strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  Thus, to enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties.  (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)

            Furthermore, CCP § 664.6 “require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)  “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.”  (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.) 

Here, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs agreed to release Defendants from this action pursuant to the releases they signed.  (Mot. Exh. B.)  Additionally, Defendants contend the settlement agreement is evidenced by Plaintiffs filing of the notice of settlement (Mot. Exh. C) and assert that the purpose of the agreement was the dismissal of the entire action. 

Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion or otherwise dispute that the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which also is seemingly confirmed by Plaintiffs’ filing of the notice of the settlement.  However, as Defendants acknowledge regarding the purported signed releases, “the quality of the scanned images are poor because the images are very small.”  (Mot. at p. 3:10-11.)  The images submitted of the alleged signed releases appear to be photographic images, but the images are too small such that it is not clear what is stated in each document.  While the top of each page appears to read, “Release of all Claims”, (Mot. Exh. B), none of the terms contained in any of the purported releases are readable.  Moreover, the names on each page that appears to contain a signature are also not readable, and thus, the Court cannot determine by who releases were signed.  (Ibid.)  Defendants also fail to show that the writings are signed by both parties, as the writings do not show whether they were signed by Defendants or their attorney and Defendants’ counsel does not declare that they were.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd., 232 Cal.App.4th at 985; Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th at 1293.) 

The Court cannot enforce the terms of the signed agreement because it cannot discern what the material terms are from Exhibit B.  Defendants provide that true and correct copies of the releases are attached as Exhibit D, but none of the pages of Exhibit D are signed by any parties.  Furthermore, although Defendants assert that Exhibit A is an email memorializing the settlement agreement and relevant amounts sent from defense counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants provide no authority holding that such an email is sufficient to enter judgment upon.  Therefore, Defendants do not establish the existence of an agreement that strictly complies with CCP § 664.6 and cannot use the expedited procedure therein to enforce settlement. 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is denied.  At the OSC re Settlement set for January 27, 2023, trial should be set in this matter if the signatures of the Plaintiffs have not been obtained.

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 25^th day of January 2023