Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV01649 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for medical malpractice and loss of consortium arising from a knee surgery that took place in February 2019. Plaintiffs Bernarda and Jesus Nunez filed their Complaint against Defendants Nirav Amin (erroneously sued as Nariv Amin), and Pomona Valley Hospital on January 14, 2020.

Defendant moves to enforce settlement pursuant to Civil Code section 664.6 on the grounds that Plaintiff had a change of heart and refused to sign a settlement agreement after the parties agreed orally to settle the matter for $175,000.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “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. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” “Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)

To be enforceable under Code Civ Proc., section 664.6, any settlement agreement outside of court must be signed by the parties and their counsel. Although the Court may adjudicate disputes over the terms of the settlement agreement, the Court may not modify terms from what was agreed to by the parties. (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 797.)

Defendant moves to enforce settlement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 664.6 on the grounds that Plaintiff refused to sign a settlement agreement after the parties agreed orally and memorialized the conversation via email.

On November 22, 2022, Defendant served a settlement offer under Code Civ. Proc., section 998 on Plaintiff offering to settle this matter for $100,000. (Franzen Decl., ¶3.) On November 28, Plaintiff responded making a demand of $200,000. (Id., ¶4.) On November 30, 2022, the parties agreed orally to settle the matter for $175,000 with each party bearing their own costs. (Id., ¶5.) Defendant’s counsel stated he would prepare a release and settlement agreement reflecting the terms of the settlement and memorialized the conversation in an email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel forwarded the release to Plaintiff’s counsel on December 1, 2022. (Id., ¶6.) On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel, stating that Plaintiff had a change of heart and was now demanding $250,000 to settle the case. (Id., ¶7.)

A court may only enforce a settlement agreement under Code Civil Procedure section 664.6 if parties to a litigation stipulated to settlement “in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court.” Here, Defendant concedes in his motion that the oral agreement was made outside the presence of the Court. Defendant relies on cases such as Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1428 involving oral agreements that were made in open court. These cases are not applicable here because the parties reached this agreement outside of the presence of the Court. Therefore, the Court may not enforce the settlement under Code Civ. Proc., section 664.6.