Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV26397, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26397    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff Jaime R. Clemente filed this action against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc., alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

            On May 6, 2024, the Court dismissed the action pursuant to a settlement between the parties.

            On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce settlement. Defendant filed its opposition on February 6, 2025.

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.¿(Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 815.)

When ruling on a section 664.6 motion, the trial court acts as a trier of fact to determine whether a settlement has occurred, which is also an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement. (Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889.) “Trial judges may consider oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.)

DISCUSSION

            The parties executed a settlement agreement in February 2024, under which Defendant would pay the sum of $41,339.52 in exchange for Plaintiff’s surrender of the subject vehicle and dismissal of the action. (Yashar Decl., Ex. 1.) Under the agreement, Defendant was required to pay the remaining loan balance on the vehicle ($19,734.89) directly to the lienholder and issue a check for $21,604.63 to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff surrendered the subject vehicle on March 27, 2024. (Yu Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant sent a check on April 3, 2024. (Id., ¶ 4.) On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel stating that the check had not been received, though Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged the check could have been lost or misplaced by their newly-hired receptionist. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested Defendant reissue the check. (Ibid.) Defense counsel replied that a new check may take two to four weeks. (Id., ¶ 10, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff did not receive the check for several months following the July 2024 correspondence. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.) This motion followed.

            Defendant reissued a check on January 6, 2025. (Yu Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendant had to take time to review and reissue the check, and experienced further delay due to the holidays. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.) Because Defendant has made payment, the motion is moot. The Court does not find that sanctions are warranted because there is no indication that Defendant intentionally failed to abide by the settlement agreement.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED. Sanctions are denied.