Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

Plaintiff Precise MRI Corp. is a medical provider.  Defendants Raymond Ghermezian PLC and Raymond Ghermezian represent personal injury clients.  Defendants entered into written agreements with Plaintiff whereby Plaintiff would provide medical services to Defendants’ clients in exchange for a lien in favor of Plaintiff on amounts recovered for Defendants’ clients.   

On December 6, 2025, after a mandatory settlement conference, the parties reached a settlement which was announced in open court.  This Court then entered the following Order: “Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $18,000 in full settlement of this matter.  Defendant will send a Trust Account check as soon as Plaintiff signs a release.  The Court retains jurisdiction.  The settlement is enforceable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” 

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce stipulation and enter final judgment.  Plaintiff argues that the terms of the settlement were that once Plaintiff signs a release, Defendant will pay Plaintiff $18,000 in full settlement of the matter.  Plaintiff has signed a release and now asks that the Court compel Defendant to pay the settlement sum.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.    

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.)  “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 

The terms of the settlement are clear.  Once Plaintiff signs a release, Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff $18,000.  There is a fully executed release.  Defendant does not argue that the release signed by Plaintiff does not comply with the terms of the Settlement.  Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.  By¿failing¿to¿file¿an¿opposition, Defendant concedes¿the arguments made in the motion. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct.¿(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566¿["By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue"];¿Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529¿["failure to address the threshold question... effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot";¿Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks¿(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1424¿[issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it].)  Accordingly, Defendant must pay Plaintiff $18,000.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.   

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 27, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court