Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Deonta Tyree Solomon, Jeris Venwalas King and Esther Valery Person 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transporation Authority 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a wrongful death case.  On or about January 15, 2019, Ronnie Solomon (“Decedent”) exited a Metro Expo Line train at the 17th St. Station in Santa Monica.  Both the train and the station were owned, controlled, and operated by Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“METRO”).  (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 13.) 

After exiting the train, Decedent fell onto the tracks between two trains.  (Id.)  Without noticing Decedent, the conductor of the train proceeded to leave the station and began traveling down the line—all while dragging and killing Decedent.  (Id.)  Plaintiffs Deonta Tyree Solomon, Jeris Venwalas King and Valery Person are the sole surviving heirs of Decedent.  (FAC ¶¶ 5-8.)    

The operative FAC alleges claims for (1) wrongful death due to negligence of public employee, and (2) dangerous condition of public property.   

On June 19-20, 2023, Plaintiffs executed a three page settlement agreement with the METRO (the “Agreement”).  Neither METRO nor its attorneys signed the Agreement.  (Opp. at 2:16-17.)  The Agreement required payment of $650,000.  (Ex. A to Djougourian Decl.)   

The payment of funds is expressly conditioned and dependent on the approval of METRO’s Board of Directors, which will occur at the first monthly meeting at which there is an available place on the Board’s Executive Session agenda.  (Id.)  The settlement has not yet been approved by METRO’s board.  METRO estimates that due to understaffing, the first monthly meeting at which there is an available place on the Board’s Executive Session agenda is January 26, 2024.  (Welch Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)     

This hearing is on Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement.  Plaintiffs argue Defendant has breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to pay the sum of $650,000.  Plaintiffs also seek interest of 10 percent per annum on the settlement sum of $650,000 from June 21, 2023 through the date of the Court’s order on this motion.  Lastly, Plaintiffs request attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $5,660.00 pursuant to the provision in the Agreement that “[t]he prevailing party in any dispute under the agreement shall be entitled to his/its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”  

LEGAL STANDARD 

¿ 

Paragraph 19 of the Agreement states that the terms are enforceable pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §664.6.  Section 664.6 provides, in pertinent part, 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.”¿¿ 

In hearing a Code Civ. Proc. §664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.¿ (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)  The Court may also receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)  The Court may interpret the terms and conditions of the settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.  (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).¿ 

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.¿ (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)¿ The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)¿¿ 

The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought.¿ (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)¿ “Parties” under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement.¿ (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (“we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6…means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record”).)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs have not submitted a fully executed settlement agreement.  Section 664.6 requires that the settlement must include the signature of the entity against whom enforcement is sought.  (J.B.B. Investment, 232 Cal.App.4th at 985.)  The Agreement submitted by Plaintiffs is not signed by METRO.   

Further, as Plaintiffs concede, the payment of the settlement sum is conditioned on the approval by METRO’s board.  This condition precedent has not been met.  The Court cannot rewrite this provision of the Agreement to allow Plaintiffs to recover the settlement sum when there has been no board approval.  The Court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.   (Weddington Productions 60 Cal.App.4th at  810).¿ 

Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees for the filing of a motion to enforce settlement agreement pursuant to Section 19 of the Agreement, which provides: “In the event it becomes necessary for RELEASORS or RELEASEES to employ attorneys due to the breach of any of the terms herein by the other, the prevailing party in any such dispute shall be entitled to all costs incurred including reasonable attorneys’ fees.”  (Ex. A to Djougourian Decl. (emphasis added).)  However, there has been no breach of the Agreement.  Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, settlement payment is subject to Board approval, and no approval has yet been obtained.   

Plaintiffs also seek interest from the date the Agreement was signed.  But the settlement agreement does not provide for interest.  On a motion to enforce settlement pursuant to § 664.6, “[i]t is not the province of the court to add to the provisions thereof; to insert a term not found therein; or to make a new stipulation for the parties.”  (Jones v. World Life Research Institute (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 836, 840 (citations omitted).)    

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to enforce settlement and Plaintiffs’ request for interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.   

 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement.  The Court sets a case management conference on October 2, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the status of METRO’s execution of the Agreement and its Board’s approval of the settlement sum. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 11, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court