Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: BC708543, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC708543    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT

            Plaintiffs seek an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 compelling Bristol-Meyers Squibb to make a settlement payment pursuant to a January 9 or January 14, 2022 settlement agreement.  Plaintiffs state the settlement agreement required the settlement to be funded no later than 45 days from the receipt of an executed release, but they have yet to receive the payment.  (Motion at p. 3.) 

There are several problems with this motion.  First, Plaintiffs did not file a copy of the January 9, 2022 settlement agreement or January 14, 2022 settlement agreement.  The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.  [Citation.]”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)  Without the actual agreement at issue, the Court cannot determine the parties to the settlement or which agreement (January 9 or January 14 or both) is the pertinent settlement agreement.  This is critical because Bristol-Myers asserts it did not sign the settlement agreement.  Plaintiffs state the agreement is confidential.  If so, Plaintiffs should follow the procedure set out in California Rule of Court, rule 2.551 by filing a motion for an order to seal the record or by filing a notice of the lodging of the confidential document. 

            Second, under section 664.6, if the parties “stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court . . . for settlement of the case . . . the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  Without a copy of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot determine the terms of the settlement agreement to enforce and enter judgment upon.

            Third, Plaintiffs did not file evidence that they executed a release and delivered it to Bristol-Meyers, which according to Plaintiffs’ motion is a condition of Bristol-Meyers paying the settlement money.  If this is a condition (which the Court cannot determine because it does not have a copy of the settlement agreement), the Court cannot require payment if this condition has not been satisfied.

            The motion is DENIED.