Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2021-00004154-CU-DF-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Defamation Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00004154-CU-DF-CTL CABOT VS GELDER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Jeffrey Gelder's unopposed motion to enforce settlement agreement is DENIED.

Gelder brings this motion pursuant to CCP § 664.6 [Entry of judgment pursuant to terms of stipulation for settlement; signed writing; exceptions]. Pursuant to subsection (a): 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. 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.

Gelder seeks to enforce the terms of the 'RELEASE IN FULL OF ALL CLAIMS AND RIGHTS.' The Release is not signed. There is no signature line for Gelder, and no signature from Gelder. There is a signature line for Plaintiff; but there is no signature from Plaintiff. Gelder concedes that Plaintiff has not signed the Release and submits evidence that Plaintiff has 'refused' to sign the Release. To enforce the terms of the Release, Gelder relies on a series of email exchanges between Plaintiff and Gelder's appellate counsel, Jeffry (Jeff) Miller. In so doing Gelder seeks to enforce, not any agreement that may have been reached via the email correspondence, but the separate Release prepared by Gelder and sent to Plaintiff for signature. Gelder argues that Plaintiff has never denied the existence of a settlement nor disputed any of the terms contained in the Release. However, neither of the authorities Gelder relies on allows for enforcement of a settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 in these circumstances. In Nicholson v. Barab (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1671 the court refused to enforce a settlement agreement that was not made orally before the court or in a writing signed by both parties. Nicholson, 233 Cal.App.3d at 1683. The analysis in Nicholson precludes enforcement of the Release in this case.

J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1 is distinguishable because it is case where one of the purported settling parties sought to enforce the settlement agreement via a motion for summary judgment. J.B.B. Investment does not involve a CCP § 664.6 motion to enforce. This distinction is significant as J.B.B. Investment specifically recognizes that the analysis in a summary judgment case differs from that in a CCP § 664.6 case. J.B.B. Investment, 37 Cal.App.5th at 13.

Absent evidence of either a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court, or an oral stipulation before the court, Gelder fails to establish grounds for enforcement of the terms of the Release under CCP § 664.6.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100921  1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CABOT VS GELDER [IMAGED]  37-2021-00004154-CU-DF-CTL If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100921  1