Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV11549, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11549    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Francisco Mata (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Foothill Transit (“Foothill”), Transdev North America, Inc. (“TNA”), Keolis Transit America, Inc. (“KTA”) and Elijah Demetrius Terrell Burden (“Burden”) for negligence.

On January 13, 2022, KTA field an answer.

On December 28, 2022, KTA filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement to be heard on February 17, 2023. On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is scheduled for April 10, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

KTA requests the Court enforce the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff requests the Court denies the motion.

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

Parties participated in mediation but did not settle during the meeting. Following the mediation, the mediator emailed a mediator's proposal to both parties, suggesting parties settle for $175,000.00. The proposal remained open until October 5, 2022, at 5 p.m. The mediator emailed back on October 4, 2022, indicating both parties had agreed to the terms of the settlement. Defendant provided a proposed settlement release to Plaintiff for the terms outline in the proposal—Plaintiff's counsel indicated that “[Plaintiff] claims (wrongly) that he did not agree to the settlement and states he wants to go to trial...”

The Court may enforce a written settlement agreement.  (Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.)  Moving party offers no written agreement for the Court to enforce. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

            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.