Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV16779, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV16779    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I. Background

On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff Crystal Herrera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ilene Valencia (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 100 for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 10, 2019.

On or about May 6, 2022, prior counsel for Plaintiff, John A. Sheehan, filed a Notice of Settlement. (See, Exh. “A” to Declaration of Brigitte M. Mayo (“Mayo Decl.”)) This Notice of Settlement stated that the settlement was conditional and that a request for dismissal would be filed no later than August 5, 2022. On August 2, 2022, Counsel Sheehan filed a declaration stating that “Defendant has offered a settlement agreement of $15,000.00 for the settlement and resolution of the injury claim of Plaintiff,” (Sheehan Decl. ¶ 6,) and that “Plaintiff is requesting additional time of sixty (60) days to rule out additional coverage, review the release and complete the settlement.” (Sheehan Decl. ¶ 7.)

On October 11, 2022, the Law Offices of Jonathan Kashani substituted in as counsel on behalf of Plaintiff. (See, Exhibit “B” to Mayo Decl.)

On December 7, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Set Aside Notice of Settlement.

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside notice of settlement. On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

A dismissal has not been entered yet; however, the Court has an OSC re: Dismissal scheduled for this date.

II. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 states “(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, upon motion, 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.”

“If an entire case is settled or otherwise disposed of, each plaintiff or other party seeking affirmative relief must immediately file written notice of the settlement or other disposition with the court and serve the notice on all parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1385(a).)

As to a conditional settlement, “[i]f the plaintiff or other party required to serve and file a request for dismissal within 45 days after the dismissal date specified in the notice does not do so, the court must dismiss the entire case unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed.” (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1385(c)(2).)

“The only decision before the court at a rule 3.1385 hearing is whether to dismiss the case or restore it to the civil active list.” (Irvine v. Regents of University of California (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 994.)

In Irvine v. Regents of University of California, the Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the case when the plaintiff had alleged a dispute over whether the parties had reached a binding settlement. (Irvine, supra,  149 Cal.App. at 1001-1002.) The Court found that plaintiff’s allegations that she had not entered into an enforceable settlement demonstrated good cause to restore the case to the civil active list. (Id. at 1002.) 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff argues that there is good cause to set aside the Notice of Settlement because prior counsel Sheehan failed to obtain authority from Plaintiff to settle the case pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.4.1(a). (Herrera Decl. ¶ 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff states that she did not execute a settlement agreement and release under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Herrera Decl. ¶ 5.)

Defendant argues that the Notice of Settlement filed with the Court reflects a settlement under section 664.6. They argue that they would be prejudiced if the Court grants relief because they will need to restart the litigation, and they have been prejudiced by the delay.

There has been no written settlement agreement filed with the Court, nor do the Court’s records reflect that an oral settlement agreement was held in open court. Defendant argues that the Notice of Settlement is a proper settlement under section 664.6; however, the Notice of Settlement does not reflect any terms of the settlement. Additionally, although Defendant states that it “forwarded a Full Release of All Claims to MR. Sheehan for Plaintiff’s signature” (Marchesini Decl. ¶ 5,) Defendant does not state that Plaintiff ever signed this release.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s contention that she never executed a settlement agreement under section 664.6 sufficient to demonstrate good cause to set aside the Notice of Settlement.

IV. Conclusion

The Motion to Set Aside Notice of Settlement is GRANTED. The case is restored to the civil active list.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 27^th day of January 2023