Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21STCV35433, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35433    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff John GA Doe (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was born on May 10, 1986, and was a 13-year-old minor during the time of the sexual misconduct alleged in this action.  Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually harassed, assaulted, and abused by Worship Leader/Lead Pastor of the New Beginnings Family Church, Defendant Robert J. Spina (“Spina”) in approximately 2000 and continuing thereafter.  Plaintiff alleges that Spina is the employer, owner, and agent of Defendant Robert Spina International, Inc. (“RSI”) and Defendant Hope Unlimited Church (“HUC”). 

The complaint, filed February 20, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligent hiring/retention; (4) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate; (5) IIED; (6) assault; (7) sexual battery (Civil Code, § 1708.5); (8) sexual harassment (Civil Code, § 51.9); and (9) gender violence (Civil Code, § 52.4).  

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Spina only. 

B.    Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.  The conditional settlement agreement conditions dismissal of the matter on the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be completed within 45 days of the settlement.  The request for dismissal was to be filed no later than February 5, 2024. 

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and a request for reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,500. 

On March 5, 2024, Defendants RSI and HUC filed an opposition brief.

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

            CCP § 664.6(a) states: “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, 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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 or, alternatively, to vacate the Notice of Settlement and set a new trial date. 

            Plaintiff state that, without revealing confidential settlement negotiations, the agreed-upon settlement terms are: “Defendants RSI and HUC shall pay Plaintiff a total of $250,000. Funds totaling $100,000.00 shall be paid by GuideOne Insurance on behalf of Defendants. Funds totaling $150,000 shall be paid by Robert and Tanya Spina on behalf of Defendants, in twelve monthly installments. Further, Defendants’ acceptance to the terms included agreement that the parties shall execute a Stipulated Judgment to be filed and collected upon in the event of breach by Defendants of the terms of the Agreement.”  (Mot. at p.4.)  Plaintiff argues that Defendants have been evasive about executing the settlement agreement and have been acting in bad faith to deprive Plaintiff of justice.

            In opposition, Defendants argue that there is no signed settlement agreement, there is no agreed monthly amount for the payment plan, and defense counsel has been suffering health issues.  Defendants state that due to their counsel’s health issues, the matter has been transferred to outside counsel to finish up the matter.  Counsel Michelle A. Hancock states that she has been experiencing medical issues since October 2023 to the present and that she apologizes to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court for the delays.  (Hancock Decl., ¶5.)  On April 4, 2024, a Substitution of Attorney was filed substituting Ms. Hancock out of the case and substituting in Robert H. Quayle IV as counsel for Defendants RSI and HUC.  Defendants state that they desire to move forward with the settlement.  (Opp. at p.1.)

            While the parties have represented to the Judge Lisa R. Jaskol of Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse that a settlement was reached and filed a Notice of Settlement, the terms of the settlement have not been provided in their written or oral form.  Plaintiff argues that the parties reached a settlement on October 13, 2023 and produced a settlement agreement that accurately reflected the settlement terms.  The October 13, 2023 minute order ordered that a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case be filed, the Court set an OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) for February 5, 2024, and stated that if a dismissal of the entire action was filed prior to the OSC, then no appearances were required.  However, the minute order did not reflect that a written settlement agreement had been entered by the parties or that the parties orally stipulated to the settlement terms before the Court.[1]

            Here, without a signed settlement agreement between the parties or an oral settlement agreement that was recorded and reflected in the minutes of the Court, Plaintiff’s motion is premature.  However, it appears that Defendants are amenable to continuing settlement discussions and that substitute counsel has been retained by Defendants for this purpose.  Thus, the parties should meet and confer to finalize the terms of the settlement and execute a written agreement.  Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied.

            Plaintiff’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff has not stated the basis for an award of fees—whether statutory or contractual.  The request is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff John GA Doe’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and request for reasonable attorney’s fees is denied.