Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2011-00451612, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Pltfs. Shorecliff Main, Lp, Js Stadium, Llc, Shorecliff Lp,
Huntington Bsc Park, Lp
Motion to Enforce Settlement
The Motion to Enforce Settlement, brought by Plaintiffs J S Stadium, LLC, Shorecliff Main, LP, Shorecliff LP and Huntington BSC Park, LP pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, is DENIED.
“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182). “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). “The statute expressly provides for the court to ‘enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id.).
“The power of the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6…is extremely limited.” (Hernandez v. Board of Education (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1176). “Although a judge hearing [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment [citations], 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, 983-984, citing Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).
Initially, the relevant Settlement Agreement includes language which expressly states the Agreement may be enforced pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6. (§9(n) of Settlement Agreement [Exhibit A to the Bauman Declaration]; See also ¶9 of Stipulation and Order [ROA No. 66]). Indeed, the Stipulation submitted prior to the dismissal of this action (and attached to the Settlement Agreement) indicates that “despite the dismissal without prejudice of this Action, the Court retains its power and jurisdiction under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6…” (¶5 of Stipulation and Order [ROA No. 66]). Consequently, the dismissal of this action did not affect the jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433).
Per the Notice of Motion (ROA No. 97), Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court enforcing the terms of a written settlement agreement and compelling Defendant Caltrans to “construct, install and maintain proper erosion control for the subject drainage ditch/culvert project.” (Notice: 1:11-12). Per the Proposed Order (ROA No. 98), however, Plaintiffs seek an order stating: “Caltrans shall install and maintain adequate erosion control via installation of landscaping at the subject drainage ditch/culvert project area and ensure that the installed landscaping germinates, takes root into the ground, and is maintained.” (¶2 of Proposed Order).
Initially, the Court notes that the Settlement Agreement itself contains no references to landscaping or erosion control. (See Settlement Agreement, generally [Exhibit A to the Bauman Declaration]). Instead, the Agreement indicates it was entered into, following meetings to discuss “the construction of underground drainage improvements ‘Culvert’ to carry all surface water flows that would currently enter the Drainage Ditch and to deliver those flows to the City drainage system at the south end of the Drainage Ditch.” (Section G of Settlement Agreement [Exhibit A to the Bauman Declaration] [ROA No. 90 at pg. 9]). Consistent with the above, the Agreement indicates that Caltrans agreed to “install an underground Culvert to better accommodate the flow coming into the Drainage Ditch…” (§1 of Settlement Agreement [Exhibit A to the Bauman Declaration]).
Incorporated into the Agreement was a preliminary design of the Culvert, which was attached to the Settlement as Exhibit 1 (§1(b) of Exhibit A to the Bauman Declaration); however, the plans are illegible. It is not clear that these plans include any references to landscaping or erosion control. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not cite to any specific portion of these plans and do not appear to rely on them, to support the motion.
Instead, Plaintiffs rely heavily on language included within an Easement. Within the Settlement Agreement, “[t]he Park Owners expressly acknowledge and agree that it will be necessary to grant Caltrans and Caltrans’ agents access to the Park Owners property on the east side of the block wall in order to complete this project.” (§1 of Settlement [Exhibit A of the Bauman Declaration]). “Such access may require the granting of easement(s) and/or encroaching permit(s) necessary to undertake the planning, design and construction of the Culvert project.” (Id.). The referenced easement proceeds to indicate that Defendant “shall be responsible for landscape and surface maintenance…” (¶5 of Easement [Exhibit 4 to Exhibit A to the Bauman Declaration]). In an apparent effort to further explain the above language, Plaintiffs cite Exhibit J, which consists of “construction plans prepared for Caltrans pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement…” (¶15 of Bauman Declaration).
As noted by Plaintiffs, Defendant previously acknowledged that Exhibit J (EC-1, EC-2 and ECQ-1) consists of project plans, sent by the state to Plaintiffs on December 23, 2013. (Exhibit 2 of RJN, Opposition to Motion to Enforce filed by Defendant on August 7, 2015: 3:7-15 [pg. 150 of RJN PDF]). A review of this Exhibit indicates the parties contemplated “Erosion Control Type 1” on the project. (Exhibit J of Bauman Declaration). Per the Exhibit, this includes “Seed Mix 1,” Fiber, Wood and Tackifier. (Id.). The plans also, specify the make-up of “Seed Mix 1.” (Id.).
The specifications included in Exhibit J are the most detailed specifications available to the Court, regarding any obligation to ensure “erosion control,” however, this document was not incorporated into the Settlement Agreement: “Most basically, what is being incorporated must actually exist at the time of the incorporation, so the parties can know exactly what they are incorporating.” (Gilbert Street Developers, LLC v. LA Quinta Homes, LLC (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1194). “Put another way, to have a valid incorporation by reference, the terms of the document being incorporated must be ‘known or easily available’ to the contracting parties.” (Id.).
As Exhibit J was drafted more than year after the instant Settlement Agreement was executed, it was not incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. At best, the document may be viewed as extrinsic evidence offered to establish the parties’ intent with respect to the language included in the Easement (i.e. language stating Defendant “shall be responsible for landscape and surface maintenance within the Easement Area”); however, Exhibit J specifically indicates an agreement that “Seed Mix 1,” wood fiber and tackifier would be placed on the property. (Exhibit J of Bauman Declaration). In contrast to this specific agreement, Plaintiff requests orders which broadly require “proper erosion control” and “installation of landscaping.” (Notice: 1:11-12 and ¶2 of Proposed Order).
As noted above, “[t]he power of the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6…is extremely limited.” (Hernandez v. Board of Education (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1176). “The statute expressly provides for the court to ‘enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182). Here, the requested orders are not consistent with any express language in the Settlement Agreement or the subsequent documents EC-1, EC-2 and ECQ-1.
In addition to the above, the Court notes that the requested orders are partially duplicative of an order which issued on August 20, 2015.
The Court previously granted a motion to enforce settlement brought pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6 and, in doing so, necessarily found that the parties’ Settlement Agreement required that “Caltrans…install and maintain adequate erosion control at the subject drainage ditch/culvert project area as identified in pages EC-1, EC-2, and ECQ-1 of the Project Plans Attached as Exhibit ‘A’ by way of hydroseeding that germinates and takes root in to the ground.” (ROA No. 87).
Here, Plaintiffs now request an order that: “Caltrans shall install and maintain adequate erosion control via installation of landscaping at the subject drainage ditch/culvert project area and ensure that the installed landscaping germinates, takes root into the ground, and is maintained.” (ROA No. 98).
Plaintiffs have slightly altered the language to refer generally to landscaping, rather than “hydroseeding,” without explanation. Having already found the Settlement Agreement required hydroseeding, specifically, Plaintiffs do not explain why the Settlement Agreement should now be interpreted as requiring general landscaping.
Moreover, Plaintiffs do not explain or cite authority which establishes that successive motions to enforce a settlement, pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6, are appropriate. As noted previously, C.C.P. §664.6 permits the Court to “enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.” (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. V. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 983-984, citing Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810). Given this Court has previously issued an order, granting a motion to enforce consistent with the terms of the settlement, no further relief appears available pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.
Based on all of the above, the motion is DENIED. To the extent the requested order is duplicative of the August 20, 2015 order, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any further relief is appropriate or necessary. To the extent the requested order differs from the August 20, 2015 order, the requested order does not match the terms of the settlement agreement, as previously found by this court.
Defendants Objections Nos. 2-4 and 11 are SUSTAINED. (ROA No. 109). The remainder of the objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (ROA No. 94) is GRANTED, in its entirety, pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d).