Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 19STCV22052, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22052    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated after he was diagnosed with HIV, based on race, sexual orientation and disability.

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, Defendant Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger, Inc. move to enforce a settlement agreement reached with Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger, Inc.’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement 

Discussion

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, Defendant Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger, Inc. move to enforce a settlement agreement reached with Plaintiff. Defendant argues that, despite the parties having reached an agreement, Plaintiff has suddenly reneged and demanded that Defendant drastically increase the settlement amount by several hundred thousand dollars in exchange for executing the Agreement.

CCP § 664.6 provides in pertinent part: 

(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.

(b) 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.

. . .

(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party’s express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.

(Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

            Defendant represents that the parties reached a settlement agreement in late March 2022. (Declaration of Lisa Yumi Mitchell, ¶ 2.) Defendant sets forth the exchange of draft Settlement Agreements between counsel. (See Mitchell Declaration, ¶¶ 2 – 5; Exhs. A, B.) However, on July 7, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff was no longer willing to sign the settlement agreement and was instead increasing his demand by several hundred thousand dollars, which Defendant’s counsel rejected. (Id. at 6.)

            On June 1, 2022, the parties represented to the Court that they had reached a settlement agreement. (See June 1, 2022 Joint Stipulation and Order; June 1, 2022 Minute Order.) However, the parties did not recite the terms of the agreement before the Court at that time, nor thereafter.

            Nor does moving party present any evidence that there as a written settlement agreement signed by Plaintiff or his attorney. None of the exhibits submitted by Defendant reflect any written agreement signed by Plaintiff or his counsel.

            The upshot is that, the Court is not determining for purposes of this CCP § 664.6 motion whether or not the agreement is enforceable by way of a separate lawsuit, or a motion for summary judgment. Rather, for purposes of the summary enforcement procedure provided for in CCP § 664.6, there has not been a settlement which satisfies the provisions of § 664.6.

We recognize that “ ‘[t]he statutory procedure for enforcing settlement agreements under section 664.6 is not exclusive. It is merely an expeditious, valid alternative statutorily created. (Citation omitted.) Settlement agreements may also be enforced by motion for summary judgment, by a separate suit in equity or by amendment of the pleadings to raise the settlement as an affirmative defense.’ (Citations omitted.) Even though it is not exclusive, Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is intended to provide a means for enforcing an agreement that requires nothing more than a single motion. “The Legislature created this procedure to benefit not only parties but also the justice system, relieving it of the burden of more time-consuming and expensive processes.” (Citation omitted)

(In re Marriage of Woolsey (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 881, 898.)

            Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is DENIED.