Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV02477, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02477    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Veronica Campo’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

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

BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff Veronica Campos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bernabe Gonzalez Anceno (“Anceno”), Yuen Vaughan (“Vaughan”) and Jessica N. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On March 30, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order Enforcing Settlement to be heard on December 16, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 8, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the complaint.

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 reached a settlement agreement on August 2, 2022, in which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $16,000.00 in settlement, consisting of Defendants’ $15,000.00 bodily injury policy and $1,000.00 in deductible reimbursement. This was after Defendants made an initial offer of $15,000.00, Plaintiff counteroffered requesting the additional $1,000.00, and Defendants accepted the terms by saying “Yes, we are settled.” Defendants then sent over a settlement agreement only identifying $15,000.00 in settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel amended the agreement to reflect the terms, which Defendants indicated they approved.

Plaintiff only received a settlement check of $15,000.00, which Plaintiff returned due to the insufficient amount. Defendants have yet to proffer the agreed upon payment. Based on the evidence provided, it is clear that parties agreed to settle for $16,000.00. The Court finds the settlement was offered and accepted by appropriate parties. The Court grants the motion, enforcing the settlement.

Plaintiff requests but offers no statutory basis for sanctions.  The Court denies the request.  

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Veronica Campo’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions 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.