Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV40344, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40344    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $700.00. 

Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is MOOT.

On 10/20/2020, Plaintiff Leah Sturgis, individually and as trustee of the Leah T. Sturgis Living Trust Dated September 12, 2006 (Plaintiff) filed suit against Jae S. Kim (Defendant), alleging: (1) partition and/or imposition of equitable easement based on encroachments; (2) judicial determination of boundaries; (3) intentional trespass; (4) negligent trespass; (5) forcible entry; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

On 8/3/2021, Plaintiff substituted Doe 1 for Ocean Sunrise, LLC.

            On 2/18/2021, Defendant’s unopposed anti-SLAPP motion was granted as to the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

            On 4/27/2021, Defendant’s unopposed motion for attorney fees was granted. Defendant was awarded $7,000 in attorney fees and $120 in costs.

            On 11/2/2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the 2/18/2021 and 4/27/2021 orders.

            Now, Ocean Sunrise moves to enforce the settlement agreement.

MJOP

            Both Plaintiff and Defendants agree that this action has been settled, though they dispute the terms of the settlement. However, given the consensus around settlement, the Court is unaware of any basis by which Defendants may continue to adjudicate the merits of the underlying Complaint.   

            In light of this action’s settlement, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is moot.  

Discussion

            Defendants argue that an enforceable settlement exists between the parties.

            In opposition, Plaintiff agrees that a settlement has been reached. However, Plaintiff argues that the details and form of the easement agreement have yet to be decided: “Kim prepared and signed the settlement agreement knowing the exact language of the easement agreement was not prepared, and needed to be worked out.” (Opp., 2: 16-17.) In particular, Plaintiff objects to the easement document as prepared by Ocean Sunrise, arguing it does not reflect their agreement and lacks “certain exculpatory/indemnity/liability language” which Plaintiff is entitled to include. (Opp., 8: 23-24.)

            Plaintiff then offers that the appropriate path for working out that issue is through this motion process. Plaintiff is mistaken. The purpose of motion practice is not to provide a forum for parties to meet-and-confer and negotiate terms. Rather, motions come after meet-and-confer has been attempted and has failed to bring about resolution. This Court is not a mediator or referee in this matter, and “nothing in section 664.6¿authorizes a judge to¿create¿the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984, emphasis added.)

            There is nothing in the settlement agreement that suggests it is “an agreement to agree” on future terms of the easement. The agreement contains an integration clause which provides: “The Agreement constitutes the complete expression of the terms of the settlement between the parties.” (Kim, Exh. 1.)  Moreover, the agreement expressly states that “time is of the essence” and “Plaintiff agrees to prepare and record an easement within 4 weeks from the execution of this agreement.” (Ibid.) This language is in direct conflict with Plaintiff’s contention that there was a shared understanding that there were future terms to be worked out, and parole evidence cannot be considered in a fully integrated agreement. (CCP § 1856; Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222.)

            There is nothing in the settlement agreement that provides for Plaintiff to insert “certain exculpatory/indemnity/liability language” in the agreement. The agreement itself provides that it represents the complete expression of the terms of the parties. Plaintiff may not now refuse to execute an easement on the grounds that it does not contain certain provisions that she wished to be included, nor does the Court possess the power to create those terms.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement is granted.  Plaintiff is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $700.00.  ($350/hr x 2 hr.)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March   , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.