Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV04895, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04895    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Hudson v. Farivar, et al., Case no. 24SMCV04895

Hearing date March 27, 2025

Defendants Farivar’s Motion to Strike Complaint/Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Plaintiff Hudson sues defendants David Farivar, D.M.D., individually and the professional corporation dba Plaza Dental Specialty for negligence and intentional concealment arising from dental work. Defendants move for determination of good faith settlement and to enforce settlement under Code Civil Proc. §§664.6 and 877.6 and to strike the complaint, asserting the parties fully negotiated and partially executed a settlement agreement on 11/27/24. See Decl. Fahim Farivar exh. 6.

Defendants request attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code §1717, arguing the alleged agreement contained an attorneys’ fees enforcement provision. Defendants seek 8 hours for negotiating and drafting the alleged agreement, 13 hours for drafting the motion and reply and 3 hours for the hearing, a total of 27 hours at $690/hour, plus $1,000 in costs. In the alternative, defendants request an evidentiary hearing regarding existence and enforceability of the alleged settlement agreement.

Section 664.6 states “[i]f 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.” Settlement agreements are enforceable where material terms are agreed upon, even if one party later refuses to sign. Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1429.

Defendants seek to enforce the settlement pursuant to section 877.6. This section addresses determination of a good faith settlement in actions involving joint tortfeasors to ensure a settlement involving some, but not all, parties is equitable and made in good faith. Section 877.6 does not permit the court to enforce a settlement in circumstances such as this, where only one party believes there was an agreed-upon settlement.

It appears the parties engaged in negotiations between 11/11/24 and 11/22/24. Per defendants, this resulted in a settlement agreement for $19,000, in exchange for a release. Decl. Fahim Farivar exh. 5. Defendants assert the agreement reflected multiple revisions from plaintiff, including an increase in the settlement amount, and plaintiff did not object to the agreement when David Farivar signed and delivered the final version. Decl. Fahim Farivar exhs. 1-5, 7. The final agreement, signed by defendants, was tendered to plaintiff on 11/27/24. Decl. Fahim Farivar exh. 6. Plaintiff did not sign and communicated her refusal to settle on 12/10/24. Decl. Fahim Farivar exh. 8.

Defendants argue plaintiff, through counsel, made representations of her intent to settle. Defendants argues the material terms of the settlement were agreed upon and finalized. Defendants argue caselaw has held that settlement agreements are enforceable based on conduct and communications evidencing mutual consent, without the need for a final signature. See Skulnick v. Roberts (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889; see also In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905.

Plaintiff argues section 664.6 requires both parties to sign a settlement agreement for it to be enforceable. Plaintiff asserts no settlement agreement can exist until all parties sign the agreement, and neither plaintiff nor counsel signed the agreement. Decl. Garrotto para. 5. Plaintiff argues this lack of signature demonstrates no meeting of the minds.

Section 664.6, recently updated with an operative date of 1/1/25, requires a settlement writing to be signed by the parties. Further, the cases cited by defendants arise from matters where a clear oral or written intent to settle had been expressed, such as an oral agreement in court to settle or a written agreement that the parties agreed to settle -- both of which evidence a clear intent by all parties to settle.