Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a fire at a business owned by Plaintiffs Crown Coachworks, Inc. and the Jacob & Martine Dunkel Family Trust.  Plaintiffs allege the fire was due to a lithium ion battery in a 2014 Honda Accord Hybrid manufactured by Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Honda”).  As a result of the fire, the building which housed Plaintiffs’ office and equipment was destroyed.  In addition, there were eleven cars parked within the building that were also a total loss. 

Trial started on June 3, 2024, but the Court declared a mistrial.  The parties were ordered to attend a mandatory settlement conference before the Hon. David Cowan.  A settlement was reached, and the terms of the settlement agreement were placed on the record in open court.     

The minute order reflects the following terms:  “Defendant is to pay Plaintiff $100,000 by no later than thirty days from today.  The parties will sign a mutual general release which will be drafted by Defendant.  Each side is to bear their own costs and fees. All parties and counsel stipulate to these terms on the record. The Court orders the Complaint filed by Crown Coachworks, Inc., et al. on 08/20/2020 dismissed with prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.”  (Ex. 1 to Berman Decl.)   

While Defendant’s counsel claims he communicated to the Court that Defendant required a confidentiality provision as a term of the settlement (Tabak Decl. ¶ 3), there is no mention of a confidentiality provision in the minute order.  Defendant never sought to amend the language of the minute order.   

After the settlement conference, counsel for Honda sent a draft release agreement which was not mutual and contained a confidentiality provision that was not one of the terms of the settlement agreement agreed to in court.  Plaintiffs objected to the confidentiality provision as the terms of the settlement were already public as they were made in open court, and also Plaintiffs were concerned Honda would use a purported violation of the confidentiality provision to sue Plaintiffs.   

Plaintiffs removed the confidentiality provision, made a few other nominal edits, then signed and returned the agreement to counsel for Honda and requested timely payment.  Honda refused to make the payment, insisting on the confidentiality provision.    

This hearing is on Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the parties’ oral settlement.  Plaintiffs argue that the Court may enforce the parties’ oral settlement agreement made in open court, which does not require Plaintiffs to keep the settlement confidential.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

¿ 

Code Civ. Proc. § 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.)¿ “[A] writing is signed by a party if it is signed by … [a]n attorney who represents the party.”  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §¿664.6(b)(2).)   

ANALYSIS    

Plaintiffs argue that the settlement agreement placed on the record in open court is enforceable pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §664.6.  The Court agrees. 

Code Civ. Proc. §664.6 states that the Court may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement made “orally before the court.”  In the present matter, the parties both orally stipulated to the terms of the agreement that were placed on the record by the Court, and agreed that the Court could retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6.  

ln cases where an oral settlement is placed on the record in the trial court, a written agreement often will follow; however, if conflicts arise in drafting the written agreement that cannot be resolved, the oral settlement remains binding and enforceable.  (Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal. App.4th 1421, 1430.)  An oral settlement before the court is enforceable under §664.6 even if one of the terms was that a written agreement would be executed, and it never was.  (Id.)  “When parties intend that an agreement be binding, the fact that a more formal agreement must be prepared and executed does not alter the validity of the agreement.”  (Blix St. Records, Inc. v. Cassidy (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 39, 48.) 

Here, Plaintiffs seek to enforce the oral agreement for the settlement of the entire case made in open court on August 19, 2024, the terms of which were memorialized in a minute order issued by Judge Cowan.  The plain language is that the parties would sign a “general release agreement,” which Plaintiffs did.  Plaintiffs have signed a general release which contains a Civil Code §1542 waiver.  Nothing contained in the minute order indicates that confidentiality was considered or required.  Indeed, confidentiality would have been contrary to Judge Cowan having placed the terms of the settlement in the Minute Order that was thereafter placed in the Court’s docket.  Accordingly, the Court will enforce the oral settlement agreement agreed to in open court, and Honda is required to make the $100,000 payment due under the agreement.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  October 22, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court