Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV44290, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44290    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

Defendant Foothill Transit (“Defendant”) moves the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 for an order enforcing the written settlement agreement executed by Plaintiff Patrick Johnson on January 8, 2025.

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff served a formal written settlement demand package, demanding $224,041.00 from Defendant.  After months of negotiating, and on December 16, 2024, Defendant responded with a settlement offer of $210,000. On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff returned the fully executed settlement agreement, signed by both Plaintiff and his counsel, along with an executed W-9 and payment instructions (Exhibits A and H). No further changes, modifications, or additions to the settlement agreement were made or requested by either party after its execution.

However, upon Defendant’s request for Plaintiff to sign a dismissal, Plaintiff refused and instead demanded an additional $100,000 in damages.

Legal Standard

CCP § 664.6 states: “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.”¿

To enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties.¿ (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)

Discussion

Defendant provided the signed settlement agreement for the Court’s review. The Court notes that the agreement was not a preliminary agreement via email or a mediation proposal but a fully executed settlement agreement and release of all claims, containing all material terms. Further, the settlement agreement resulted from protracted negotiations between the parties from October to December 2024. The parties did not request modifications or additions to the signed agreement until Plaintiff later demanded an additional $100,000 in damages. The final settlement amount of $210,000 was also substantially similar to Plaintiff’s original demand of $224,041.00. This demonstrates that the parties reached a meeting of the minds on all material terms, as reflected in the executed written settlement agreement.

Plaintiff filed an opposition claiming that he made a mistake in failing to consider (1) loss of income from part-time employment, (2) exacerbation of PTSD, (3) a broken neck, (4) future ongoing treatment, and (5) high medical liens when signing the settlement agreement. Based on this, Plaintiff requests that the Settlement Agreement be set aside.

However, Plaintiff’s opposition fails to cite any legal authority supporting the argument that a unilateral mistake justifies setting aside the Settlement Agreement. Under California law, a settlement agreement is a binding contract, and courts routinely enforce them unless the agreement was procured by fraud, duress, undue influence, mutual mistake, or lack of capacity (Civ. Code, § 1567). Unilateral mistake is generally insufficient to rescind a contract unless: (1) the mistake was known or suspected by the other party, and (2) enforcing the contract would be unconscionable (Larsen v. Johannes (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 491, 503; Rest. 2d, Contracts § 153(a)). There is no indication that Defendant knew or suspected any mistake when Plaintiff signed the agreement, especially given that the final settlement amount of $210,000 was nearly identical to Plaintiff’s original demand of $224,041. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence or argument demonstrating either unconscionability or Defendant’s knowledge of the alleged mistake. Accordingly, Plaintiff request is denied, and the motion is granted.

The motion to continue the trial is moot based on the court granting the motion to enforce 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’s 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.