Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV22874, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22874    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Rosalinda Villaraza’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Dismiss Plaintiff’s Action

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

BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2021, Plaintiffs Caroline Thompson (“Thompson”) and Jessie Vesagas (“Vesagas”) filed this action against Defendants 940 East Colorado, L.P. (“940”), FIC-Master Lessee, LLC (“FIC”), Beverly Enterprises – California, Inc. (“BE CA”), Beverly Enterprises (“BE”), G.B.T. (“GBT”), Grossman Family, LLC (“Grossman”), Theodore Birnkrant (“Theodore”), Carole Birnkrant (“Carole”), Michael Birnkrant (“Michael”), Sally J. Birnkrant (“Sally”), Thomas Birnkrant (“Thomas”), Janet Birnkrant-Levine (“Birnkrant-Levine”), Gary M. Tearson (“Tearson”) and Rosalinda Villaraza (“Villaraza”) for motor vehicle negligence, negligence and premises liability and loss of consortium.

On September 22, 2021, 940 and FIC filed an answer.

On June 30, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendant Villaraza filed a Motion for Order Enforcing Settlement and Dismissing Plaintiff’s Action to be heard on August 12, 2022. On August 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 16, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Villaraza requests the Court enforce the settlement agreement, dismissal Plaintiff’s action against Villaraza, and enforce sanctions totaling $1,135.00 on Plaintiff.

Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s 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

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with Villaraza for the sum of $25,000.00, signing a Release Agreement in Full of All Claims and Rights relating to the injury that occurred on June 20, 2019. (Ex. 1.) Payment was issued on June 26, 2019, and cashed on July 3, 2019. (Ex. 2.)

Plaintiff does not contest the validity of the settlement agreement, instead focusing on technical issues. The Court is not swayed by these arguments, especially given that Plaintiff’s opposition was filed beyond the CCP § 1005 deadline. Some of those arguments are addressed below.

Plaintiff argues that Villaraza is in default as she has not filed any responsive pleading or answer to the complaint. This is incorrect; Plaintiff has not requested an entry of default against Villaraza. Thus, Villaraza is not in default.

Plaintiff further argues that CCP § 664.6 is not applicable as the Villaraza is a non-party who has yet to appear. The Court disagrees. CCP § 664.6 is intended to apply to pre-litigation settlement agreements, if the parties eventually seek litigation, which is exactly the case here. In measure fairness and good faith, it is unfair and improper to agreement to a settlement and to release all claims prior to litigation, then file a case in hopes to recover twice against Villaraza. The Court also notes that it is within the Court’s power to dismiss a Defendant who has yet to appear in a case.

Complaints relating to Villaraza’s lack of discovery responses are inapplicable and inappropriate for an opposition to this motion.

Based on the totality of circumstances, the Court grants the motion.

Sanctions

Villaraza did not provide a statutory basis for the imposition of sanctions. The Court will not award sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Rosalinda Villaraza’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Dismiss Plaintiff’s Action is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint against Villaraza is dismissed, with prejudice.

            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.