Judge: H. Chester Horn, Jr., Case: BC633489, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: BC633489    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: I

Efrem Charles v. Hooman Hyundai, et al.

BC633489

Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

                In this matter, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement with the defendant pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P., sec. 664.6.  that section provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) 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, may enter judgment  pursuant to the terms of the settlement. . . .

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

                (1) The party.

                (2) An attorney who represents the party.

                . . .

                In this case, the Court finds that the parties entered into a settlement agreement by virtue of an exchange of emails between the attorneys for the parties on January 16, 2023.  At 5:36 p.m. that day, Plaintiff’s attorney, Omid Khorshidi, sent an email, signed by him to Duncan McCreary, the attorney for the defendants, Hooman Hyundai and Hooman Nissani, offering to settle the case for $50,000.  At 7:57 p.m. that day, Duncan McCreary responded to the plaintiff’s offer by noting that the defendants accepted the offer with a full release of all claims, a Civil Code sec.  1542 waiver, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, and a dismissal with prejudice of the entire action  That email requested confirmation of plaintiff’s acceptance of the terms and indicated that McCreary would prepare a settlement agreemment.  At 8:26 p.m. that day, Omid Khorshidi responded with an email confirming that plaintiff had accepted the terms.  At 8:27 p.m., McCreary responded that “I will be appearing by video based on the settlement.”  In the Court’s, this email exchange resulted in a settlement agreement with clear terms.

                On January 24, 2023, Duncan McCreary emailed a draft of the release embodying the terms of the settlement to Omid Khordhidi.  That draft included all of the essential terms of the agreement the [parties had reached via their previous emails.  On January 25, 2023, Omid Khordhidi sent a revised draft of the release that changed the name of the recipient of the settlement funds from the “Khorshidi Trust Account” to the “Khorshidi Law Firm APC and Efrem Charles.”  It also provided that the dismissal with prejudice would be filed within 10 days of “confirmation of bank clearance of the $50,000 settlement funds.  At a hearing before the Court on January 26, 2023, Duncan McCreary represented to the Court that the settlement check would be provided to Plaintiff’s counsel by February 13, 2023.  On February 8, 2023, Duncan McCreary sent a revised Release And Settlement Agreement to Omid Khorshidi accepting all of the minor revisions he had requested, but adding a new provision that had never been discussed as Paragraph “4.0 Indemnification for subrogation or Lien Claims.”  The Court finds that this addition was an attempt by the defendant’s counsel to add a material provision to the settlement that had not been agreed to or even discussed.

                The Court finds that the parties intended their email exchanges to document their settlement.  The drafts of the agreement provided over the next several days were intended formalize the agreement and the scope of the release.  Accordingly, the Court finds that the J.B.B. case cited by the defendants in their Settlement Brief is not relevant since the parties both confirmed their agreement orally to the Court  The Court orders entry of judgment for the plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the agreement outlined above.  The parties are to formalize the language of the release consistent with this opinion.