Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV07517, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07517    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Dameon Greene and Erick Reed’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiffs Dameon Greene (“Greene”) and Erick Reed (“Reed”) filed this action against Defendants Antonia Cuenca (“Cuenca”) and Susana Madrid (“Madrid”) for negligence.

On February 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the FAC.

On May 16, 2022, Madrid filed an answer.

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement to be heard on February 16, 2023.

There is no currently scheduled trial date.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court enforce the settlement agreement and award attorneys’ fees totaling $3,315.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.”  CCP § 664.6.

Courts are empowered to enter judgments pursuant to oral settlements made before the court or written settlements signed by the parties. (Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1428; CCP § 664.6; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶12:952.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.”  Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1533. In deciding whether to enforce a settlement, courts have the power to decide disputed facts, and to interpret the agreement. Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶¶12:977 – 12:978.5. Judges may receive evidence, determine disputed facts including the terms the parties previously agreed upon, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not newly create material terms. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.) Judges also cannot address ambiguities in material terms by filling in the gaps, or adjudicate differences between the parties, as distinguished from just settling or interpreting the settlement provisions. (Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel the settlement offer, requesting their signature. Plaintiffs subsequently signed and emailed the signed documents back to Defendants’ counsel in August of 2022. Defendants have yet to pay the settlement amount, despite multiple requests by Plaintiffs.

The settlement clearly states that Defendants agree to pay each Plaintiff $6,500.00, for a total of $13,000.00. The settlement was drafted and offered by Defendants; Plaintiffs accepted the settlement when they signed and emailed back the settlement agreement. There is no dispute as to the fact the settlement is binding and effective. The Court grants the motion.

Plaintiffs’ request $3,375.00 in attorney’s fees based on 5.1 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $650.00 per hour, and 1 $60.00 filling fee. The subject agreement provided that Plaintiffs may recover attorney fees “by reason of the issuance of the settlement draft to the undersigned and his counsel...” Given that this stems from a failure to perform the settlement, attorney’s fees are appropriate as dictated by contract. The Court instead awards $1,335.00, based on 5.1 hours at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour, and 1 $60.00 filling fee.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Dameon Greene and Erick Reed’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Dameon Greene and Erick Reed’s Request for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. Defendants and Defendants’ counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiffs $1,335.00 in attorney’s fees within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.  

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.