Judge Kenneth J. Medel, Case 37-2022-00013705-CU-OE-CTL 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00013705-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023 09:30:00 AM C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00013705-CU-OE-CTL WALCZAK VS PRINCE OF PEACE ABBEY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Enforce Settlement, 09/06/2023

Defendant PRINCE OF PEACE ABBEY's Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Section 664.6 provides in part as follows: (a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in 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.' '(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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6, emphasis added.) (Note that the law changed in 2021 – an attorney signature is now acceptable.) The elements necessary for an enforceable settlement agreement are established by the legal principles applicable to contracts generally. (Gorman v. Holte (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 984, 988.) basic requirements for an enforceable contract are (1) parties capable of contracting, (2) the consent of those parties, (3) a lawful object, and (4) adequate consideration. (Civ. Code, § 1550.) The consent of the parties to a contract must be free, mutual, and communicated by each to the other. (Civ. Code, § 1565; see Civ. Code, § 1581 [communication of consent].

The parties mediated the dispute in July, 2023 with Judge McCurine.

Settlement with Judge McCurine On July 26, 2023, Judge McCurine issued the following mediator's proposal: Following this introduction is my Mediator's Proposal ('MP'). You can either accept or reject the proposal; you cannot modify it. You cannot send me a counter-proposal. Your response is private and confidential; do not send it to other counsel. Once each party responds with an acceptance or rejection, I will let all counsel know in a single email that the proposal was accepted or rejected. I will not disclose who, if anyone, rejects the proposal. Obviously you will know if all relevant parties accept the proposal.

The Proposal is a global settlement of $XXX,XXX1 plus the following terms: 1. Defendant must prepare the final settlement agreement.

2. Each party must bear his/her/its own attorney's fees and costs.

3. Each party must waive Civil Code Section 1542.

4. Plaintiff must prepare and file a Dismissal with Prejudice of the entire action and deliver a conformed copy after (a) the final settlement agreement has been signed by all parties and (b) Defendant has made full payment.

5. The settlement agreement shall be confidential.

6. Defendant will pay Plaintiff the total sum of $XXX,XXX within 30 days of the full signing of the settlement agreement.

7. The parties must accept or reject my MP on or before Friday, July 28, 2023, Noon Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3015422 38 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: WALCZAK VS PRINCE OF PEACE ABBEY [IMAGED] 37-2022-00013705-CU-OE-CTL (PST) by sending a private email to: judgemccurine@judicatewest.com.

(Blackstone-Gardner Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff, through his counsel, accepted the mediator's proposal.

(Blackstone-Gardner Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) He wrote: On behalf of the plaintiff, we accept our proposal and thank you for your time and assistance regardless of whether this results in a settlement or not.

Sincerely, Lenden F. Webb WEBB LAW GROUP, APC San Diego Office 10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 450 San Diego, CA 92121 (Blackstone-Gardner Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) All the elements of a contract are present here. An email may constitute an electronic signature, including Preston Law Firm, L.L.C. v. Mariner Health Care Mgmt. Co. (5th Cir. 2010) 622 F.3d 384, 391; Cloud Corp. v. Hasbro, Inc. (7th Cir. 2002) 314 F.3d 289, 295–296 Lamle v. Mattel, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005) 394 F.3d 1355, 1362 [e-mail was written prior to the enactment of California's UETA but court opined that inclusion of individual's name on e-mail would be valid signature under California's UETA].), and Forcelli v. Gelco Corp. (2013) [972 N.Y.S.2d 570], 109 A.D.3d 244.

Civil Code section 1633.7 provides in pertinent part that 'a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form' and that 'electronic and handwritten signatures have the same legal effect and are equally enforceable.' (Civ. Code, § 1633.7, subds. (a), (b).) The issue of electronic signatures as referenced in Section 1633.7 was addressed in the decision of J.B.B. Inv. Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 974, where, after the court specifically noted that a printed name or symbol can constitute a signature under UETA and 'might even satisfy the more rigorous requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6,' the court confirmed that under section 1633.2, an ' [e]lectronic signature' means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record.' (J.B.B., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at 989, citing CACI No. 380 [party suing to enforce an agreement formalized by electronic means must prove 'based on the context and surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, that the parties agreed to use [e.g., e-mail] to formalize their agreement' (italics omitted.) The parties acceptance of the settlement terms, by electronic means/process is what the parties intended and accomplished here. The mediator's proposal expressly conditioned acceptance and the formation of the settlement only through written email confirmation by the parties' respective attorneys. The parties agreed to use emails to confirm their acceptance of the settlement terms, and that is precisely what they did. (See Exs. 1, 2, 3.) Thus, the email signatures of the parties' attorneys fully comply with Civil Code 1633.2 and 1633.7.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3015422 38