Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV04390, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV04390, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04390 Hearing Date: November 5, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTIONS TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Hearing Date: 11/5/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV04390 ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-BAUTISTA, et al. vs TAYLOR COLTON KENT et al.

Moving Party: Defendants TAYLOR COLTON KENT

Responding Party: Truck Insurance Exchange and Plaintiffs Antonio Rodriguez Bautista and Christobal Rodriguez Bautista

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: Motion to Enforce Denied

Background

This action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on December 17, 2020. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff Antonio Rodriguez Bautista and his brother, Plaintiff Christobal Rodriguez-Bautista, were in a vehicle acting within the course and scope of their employment. Both individuals sustained injuries and received Workers’ Compensation benefits from Plaintiff-in-Intervention, Truck Insurance Exchange (“Truck”).

On April 22, 2022, Truck filed its subrogation lawsuit, which, on November 28, 2023, was related to the present case, and the cases were consolidated. The parties allegedly reached a settlement whereby Truck was to receive $40,500.00, and the individual Plaintiffs were to receive $9,500.00, with each party bearing its own attorney’s fees and costs. However, Counsel for the individual Plaintiffs has refused to return the release in the civil case. Defendant now moves the court to enforce the settlement agreement against both the individual Plaintiffs and Trucking.

Motion to Enforce Settlement¿¿

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.)¿¿¿

¿¿¿

CCP § 664.6 “require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”¿ (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)¿ CCP § 664.6’s “requirement of a ‘writing signed by the parties’ must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed.”¿ (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”].)¿ “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.”¿ (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

Discussion

Here, two separate settlement agreements purportedly make up the global agreement among the parties: (1) an agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant; and (2) an agreement between Defendant and Truck. However, neither settlement agreement at issue here bears the signature of all parties. The settlement agreement between the individual Plaintiffs and Defendant does not contain any signatures. The settlement agreement between Defendant and Truck includes only Truck’s signature but lacks Defendant’s. Defendant concedes that “Defendant did not sign either of the personal injury or subrogation Settlement Agreements.” (Mtn. at pg. 9.)

Strict compliance with statutory requirements is essential before a court can enforce a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Section 664.6 mandates that “the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced” are required. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) This requirement for a “writing signed by the parties” applies to all parties involved in the § 664.6 motion. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see also Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [holding that a settlement agreement is not enforceable under § 664.6 unless signed by all parties, not merely the parties against whom enforcement is sought].)

Defendant has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of § 664.6, and thus, the motions are denied. Furthermore, Defendant requests that the court compel Plaintiffs and their counsel to sign the settlement agreement as allegedly agreed upon in the August 2, 2024 email. Such remedy is unavailable under § 664.6. However, “The procedure to enforce a settlement under section 664.6 is not exclusive; parties may pursue alternative relief, such as a motion for summary judgment, a separate suit in equity, or an amendment of the pleadings.” (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 581.)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.