Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case Salari v. Man 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Salari v. Man, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Enforce Settlement.

Defendant Victoria Man moves to enforce the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) signed by Plaintiff Ray Salari, M.D. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 provides: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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 “was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4^th 793, 809.) Personal consent to the material terms of the settlement by each of the parties or their counsel is a statutory prerequisite to a 664.6 motion. (Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4^th 1242, 1257-58.)

Plaintiff executed the Agreement on January 25, 2022. (Murphy Dec., ¶ 9 and Ex. 1.) According to the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to pay $125,000 to Defendant by February 1, 2022, in exchange for a signed, notarized and recorded deed confirming title to the subject property to be held solely in Plaintiff’s name. Plaintiff also agreed to pay $32,500 to an individual identified as Pastor Milad Hanna. Upon completion of this transaction, counsel for the parties were to file a request for dismissal with prejudice. (Id.)

Plaintiff contends that he was “deceived into signing the Settlement Agreement by someone who I thought wanted to help me pay the principal amount, but they just wanted to take the property for themselves instead.” (Supplemental Salari Dec., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not identify this person or explain how he was deceived into signing the Agreement. Plaintiff contends he does not have the money to pay the amount required by the Agreement. (Id., ¶ 3.) If Plaintiff did not have the funds, he should not have signed the Agreement.

Plaintiff does not dispute signing the Agreement nor does Plaintiff dispute that he has not made the payments required by the Agreement. Plaintiff is ordered to comply with the Agreement within 60 days. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the Agreement, the Court may dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

At this time, the Court declines to dismiss the case pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 583.410, 583.430, CRC 3.1340, or CRC 3.1342. Plaintiff has provided evidence that he has been attempting to resolve this case through his counsel over the past year. (Nowicki Dec., ¶¶ 3-16.)

An OSC re Dismissal is set for August 29, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Department N16.

Defendant to give notice.