Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV17668 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Porfirio Barrios (“Barrios”) and Oscar Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Joseph Palacio, Michael Houston, and Ana Corona for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

At this time, Defendant Joseph Palacio (“Defendant”) moves to enforce a settlement against Plaintiffs pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.

Defendant asserts that on April 13, 2022, Plaintiffs each signed settlement agreements stating they would dismiss their lawsuits against Defendant in exchange for $6,000.00 to each of Barrios and Rodriguez. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have received the payments but refuse to dismiss their lawsuits. Defendant provides that on July 13, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel stating that Plaintiffs would not dismiss the lawsuit against Defendant until the parties resolved Barrios’s property damage claims. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their bodily injury claims and property damage claims as part of the agreement, so Plaintiffs’ refusal to dismiss Defendant is a clear violation of the agreement. Defendant contends that although Barrios is not entitled to a separate payment for his property damage, Defendant has attempted to resolve these issues with Plaintiffs to no avail. Defendant therefore seeks an order dismissing Defendant from this action.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue they understood and signed the subject agreement as pertaining to their bodily injury claims only, and that after Defendant received the agreements, Defendant kept negotiating the property damages portion of Barrios’s claim. Plaintiffs argue the signed agreements represented did not apply to their property damages, and that Defendant is now attempting to defraud Plaintiffs and avoid paying property damages.

In reply, Defendant contends that the parties did not mutually agree to limit the scope of the settlement agreements, as Defendant’s counsel believed the agreements would be the final settlement of all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot now unilaterally back out of the settlement agreements.

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:

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

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.) CCP § 664.6’s “requirement of a ‘writing signed by the parties’ must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”].) “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, each of Plaintiffs Barrios and Rodriguez entered into settlement agreements with Defendant on April 13, 2022, whereby Plaintiffs agreed to release all claims against Defendant in exchange for $6,000.00. (Mot. Exh. A.) The agreements are identical and provide in relevant part:

The Undersigned, [Plaintiffs], the sole consideration of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000.00) […] hereby releases, acquits and forever discharges JOSEPH PALACIO and NATAYA PALACIO, their affiliates and their subsidiaries from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights (including subrogation rights, rights of payment, rights of disbursement), compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, loss of service, and any medical and/or hospital liens; any attorney liens of any nature and any expenses and compensation whatsoever which the Undersigned now has or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way arising out of any and all known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries, property damage, loss of consortium, punitive damages, and the consequences thereof resulting from the incident which occurred on February 20, 2021, at the intersection of Washington Blvd. and San Pedro St. in Los Angeles, California.

Defendant attests that Plaintiffs have received the subject payments, and Plaintiffs’ counsel has deposited the settlement checks. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are now required to dismiss Defendant from the action, but Plaintiffs are refusing to do so in violation of the agreements. Defendant is thus seeking an order dismissing Defendant from this action with prejudice. Plaintiff, in opposition, primarily contends that the agreements they signed pertained only to their bodily injury claims, and not their property damage claims.

While the agreements on their face state that Plaintiffs are agreeing to release any and all known and unknown bodily injury and property damage claims, there are at least two issues with Defendant’s motion.

First, the relevant agreements are signed by each of Barrios and Rodriguez only. (Mot. Exh. A.) The agreements are not signed by Defendants or an attorney that represents Defendants. (CCP § 664.6(b).) CCP § 664.6 requires that the agreement be signed by all parties bringing the motion and against whom the motion is directed. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd., 232 Cal.App.4th at 985; Harris, 74 Cal.App.4th at 306; Sully-Miller Contracting Co.,103 Cal.App.4th at 35-37.) Defendant cites to Sterling v Taylor (2007) 40 Cal.4th 757, 773, in arguing that a settlement agreement only needs to be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. However, Sterling involved the use of extrinsic evidence to determine whether memoranda comply with the statute of frauds. [1] Nowhere in its opinion did the Sterling Court address any issues involving a party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement and enter a judgment pursuant to the summary procedure authorized by CCP § 664.6. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 614 [“Cases are not authority for propositions not considered therein.”].) Therefore, Defendant does not establish that the agreements strictly comply with CCP § 664.6.

Second, CCP § 664.6 permits the Court to enter a judgment in conformance with the terms of a settlement agreement. (CCP § 664.6(a) [“the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”]; see Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174,1182-83 [“The statute expressly provides for the court to “enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”]; accord. Hernandez v. Board of Education (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1176 [“The power of the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, however, is extremely limited.”].) Defendant is not requesting that the Court entered a judgment against Defendant pursuant to the terms of the agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Rather, Defendant is seeking an order dismissing Defendant from this case. Defendant, however, does not cite any authority demonstrating the Court has the authority to enter such an order under CCP § 664.6, as opposed to entering a judgment.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] In Sterling, 40 Cal.4th at 764, “The complaint included causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, specific performance, declaratory relief, an accounting, intentional misrepresentation, and imposition of a constructive trust.”