Department 58

Hearing Date: March 20, 2025

Case Name: Rios v. Besta Construction LLC

Case No.: 24STCV32413

Matter: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Defendant Besta Construction LLC and Edward Ting Mak

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is denied.

This action arose from a car accident. The Complaint alleges, on December 7, 2024, a bag that fell out of Yanfen Zeng’s vehicle and was struck by Plaintiff Alejandro Rios.

Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendants Yanfen Zeng, Mengyin Wang, and Besta Construction LLC reached a settlement of this matter, including a stipulation that this Court retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.

Defendants Besta Construction LLC and Edward Ting Mak now move to enforce the settlement agreement against Plaintiff Alejandro Rios. No opposition was filed.

The motion is denied.

Legal Standard

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under section 664.6. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

Discussion

Defendants seek to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Besta Construction LLC, and Edward Ting Mak, manager or member of Besta Construction LLC, Los Angeles County Case No. 24STCV32359. On the same day, he filed a second lawsuit, the instant action, against Besta Construction LLC and Edward Ting Mak (Defendants), and City of Monrovia arising from the same incident.

On or about January 3, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendants settled all disputes in Case No. 24STCV32359 and formalized their settlement in a Settlement and Full Release of all Claims. (Buttry Decl., ¶ 5.) Notably, this release was signed and initialed by Plaintiff. (Buttry Decl., ¶ 5.) and check for $5,347.28 in compliance with this release was issued on January 6, 2025; this check was endorsed and cashed by Plaintiff. (Buttry Decl., ¶ 6.)

Upon discovery of the instant second lawsuit, a second Settlement and Full Release of all Claims (Release) was executed and signed by Plaintiff on January 16, 2025 to include this case, Case No. 24STCV32413. (Buttry Decl., ¶ 7.) This release was also initialed and signed by Plaintiff. (Buttry Decl., ¶ 7.) A check in the amount of $4,380.00 was issued on January 17, 2025; this check was also endorsed and cashed by Plaintiff. (Buttry Decl., ¶ 8.)

The relevant portion of the second Release states:

“It is a material condition of this settlement that each party to this agreement will bear their own costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff agrees to dismiss both Case #24STCV32359 and Case #24STCV32413 filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court with prejudice against all named parties inclusive of but not limited to Yanfen Zeng, Mengyin Wang and Besta Construction LLC and provide Infinity Insurance Company/Kemper with a conformed copy of the dismissal when back from court.” (¶ 6.)

The Settlement is signed by Plaintiff. However, the Settlement is only signed by Plaintiff. The absence of Defendants’ signature on this Settlement is fatal to obtaining relief under this statute.

As noted above, a party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) Further, a party seeking enforcement under Section 664.6 must strictly comply with its requirements. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 37.)

In Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, the Second District Court of Appeal addressed this specific issue. That is, the Court of Appeal rejected a party’s argument that under Section 664.6, the statute only requires the signature of the party “to be charged.” (Harris, at p. 304.) The Court of Appeal explained: “We read the statute's requirement of a writing ‘signed by the parties’ to require the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced” because section 664.6 “contemplates the litigants on both sides of the dispute” must sign the settlement agreement for it to be enforceable under that section. (Harris, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 305.)

In this case, Defendants’ signatures are required on the Release because Defendants are seeking to enforce the Agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreements does not comply with all the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Conclusion

The Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is denied.