Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV43069, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

On November 10, 2020, plaintiff Anthony Lynn Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant the People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant is responsible for a dangerous condition of public property on the freeway.

Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement agreement of September 11, 2023. Defendant opposes. Plaintiff also filed a reply.

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)¿¿¿

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.¿ (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)¿ The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).¿ 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 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a “writing signed by the parties” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)¿

Plaintiff asserts there is a written settlement agreement between the parties. (Libman Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff only provides emails between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel with no specific terms of the agreement, only a settlement amount of $900,000.00. (Exh. 1.) Nor do those emails contain signatures (Plaintiff’s argument that the email communications contain electronic signatures is unpersuasive.)

On reply, Plaintiff asserts the settlement agreement was made orally before the Court on October 20, 2023. (Reply, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff contends Defendant stated that counsel “agreed to a monetary settlement via email.” (Id., 10:21-23.) However, later in that same transcript, Defendant states there is no “settlement release on which signatures appear on which all terms of the settlement have been negotiated,” and that Defendant’s counsel did not believe the emails to be a settlement enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Id., 12:18-26.)

As there is no writing signed by the parties presented to the Court, Plaintiff has not met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Nor is the discussion on the record before the Court enough to establish a settlement.

Having determined that no agreement exists between the parties, the Court does not address issues related to potential liens on that settlement.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court