Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV30098, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 26, 2022

Case Name: McGirt, et al. v. Brewer, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV24395  

Matter: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Guerod Thomas Mcgirt, Thurston Brooks, and Clarence Brown 

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied without prejudice.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiffs Guerod Thomas Mcgirt, Thurston Brooks, and Clarence Brown seek to enforce a settlement with Defendant Gloria Brewer that was purportedly reached in March 2022.  The settlement requires that Defendant tender $79,000 to Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs contend that Defendant never made any payment despite their full performance.  Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their favor for $79,000 plus interest and costs.    

The settlement states, “The Settling Parties do hereby agree that each has the right to enforce this Agreement, or any provision thereof, by filing any appropriate motion or proceeding, including, without limitation, a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure§§ 664.6 & 664.7, in the appropriate law and motion department of the Los Angeles Superior Court where the Action is venued.”

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to a stipulated settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)  In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.”  (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)  “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.  [Citations.]  The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.  [Citations.]  If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

The settlement attached to the Motion is unsigned by the Defendant.  Counsel’s declaration states: “I did receive a phone call while at the bank from an attorney whom I had never dealt with before purporting to be with Farmer's [in]-house counsel indicating that Mr. Wilson [(Defense counsel)] was out of the office until June 28, 2022 and that the reason the settlement money had not been sent was that his insured, or the defendant, had not signed the settlement agreement. Had he responded to my prior emails concerning the issue, I would have told him what I told the unidentified associate attorney, that we did not care if his client signed the settlement agreement since all of the proceeds were coming from Farmers Insurance, they had the authority under the code to settle the case. I demanded that they send the money forthwith. The associate[] indicated th[at] Jason Wilson would deal with it when he got back”.

In the absence of any signature from Defendant or her insurer it is not apparent that the parties reached a valid settlement.  This will be discussed at the Motion hearing.  For the time-being, the Motion is denied without prejudice.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.