Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCV27071, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Lupitas Banquet Hall, Inc.’s, Patricia Cleves Cabreras’, and Juan Salvador Vasquez’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.

Plaintiffs Maria Miranda’s and Luciano Miranda’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied.

Defendants Lupitas Banquet Hall, Inc. (“Lupitas”), Patricia Cleves Cabreras (“Cabreras”), and Juan Salvador Vasquez (“Vasquez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for an order finding the settlement agreement reached with Plaintiffs Maria Miranda (“Maria”) and Luciano Miranda (“Luciano”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) is enforceable and requires Plaintiffs to walk-through the settlement at the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) to have the settlement approved. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

Plaintiffs also move for an order to enter judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement entered between the parties for the amount of $138,000.00. (Notice of Motion Plaintiffs, pg. 2; C.C.P. §664.6.)

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiffs and Defendants accepted a mediator’s settlement proposal. (Decl. of Biggins ¶2, Exh. A.) The mediator’s proposal clearly indicated that Plaintiffs would be releasing all claims against the defendants. (Id.)

On March 8, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion. On March 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a late opposition. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their own motion to enforce the settlement agreement. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Defendants.

C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: “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.” (C.C.P. §664.6(a).)

Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a C.C.P. §664.6 motion on the basis of declarations or other evidence. (Malouf Brothers v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284; Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 [stating court may resolve reasonable disputes over terms of settlement agreement but may not modify terms from what was agreed to by parties].) Any written settlement agreement outside of court must be signed by the parties or their counsel. (Gauss v. GAF Corp. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113 [decided under former version of C.C.P. §664.6].)

Even if not enforceable under C.C.P. §664.6, oral settlements by counsel alone may be enforceable in separate proceedings: e.g., by motion for summary judgment (after amending the pleadings to allege settlement defense or new cause of action); or in a separate suit in equity. (See Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 n.5; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.) Such proceedings are governed by agency principles and require proof that the client expressly authorized the attorney to settle on the client’s behalf. (Murphy v. Padilla (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 707, 717.)

C.C.P. §664.6 procedures empower the judge hearing the motion to determine disputed factual issues that have arisen regarding the settlement agreement and permits the court “to entertain challenges to the actual terms of the stipulation,” that is, whether there “actually was” a settlement. (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566 [stating statute’s express authorization for trial courts to determine if a settlement occurred is “implicit authorization” for trial court to determine settlement's terms and conditions].)

Defendants submitted evidence Plaintiffs’ attorney signed for Plaintiffs and the settlement agreement expressly states that email by counsel is sufficient to make the settlement agreement binding. (Decl. of Biggins ¶2, Exh. A at pg. 2.)

The parties agreed the settlement agreement would be enforceable in accordance with C.C.P. §664.6. (Decl. of Biggins ¶2, Exh. A at pg. 2.)

Accordingly, Defendants submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement, and Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing the settlement. Defendants submitted evidence that the settlement agreement includes a provision that requires the release of all claims, The mediator’s proposal clearly indicated that Plaintiffs would be releasing “all claims” against the defendants. (Decl. of Biggins ¶2, Exh. A.) The Court finds that “all claims” means all claims Plaintiffs have against Defendants, known or unknown, and includes any claims for worker’s compensation benefits.

The Court denies Defendants’ request to walk through the settlement agreement at the WCAB to have the settlement approved according to the procedures stated in 8 C.C.R. §10789. No such order is required. Defendant is entitled to the relief pursuant to the settlement, and Plaintiff must obtain it as a prerequisite to Defendant paying the settlement.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement is granted.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court