Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV23787, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

The complaint arises from an alleged automobile accident that occurred on August 15, 2020. On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Amy Lindgren and Does 1 through 10, alleging a cause of action for negligence.

On October 10, 2023, Defendant filed and served a motion to enforce settlement (the “Motion”) pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 and for an order and entry of judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant dated December 14, 2021. The Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has breached the settlement agreement by failing to perform under the terms of the settlement. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff deposited the settlement check but has failed to execute the General Release of Claims in the form offered pursuant to the settlement offer.

On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion. Plaintiff contends that: (1) she did not sign any settlement agreement; and (2) Plaintiff’s former counsel’s staff mistakenly endorsed the check and deposited the check in error, and the check was quickly returned to Defendant. The opposition to the Motion was not filed with a proof of service. Plaintiff is to provide the Court with a filed proof of service either before or at the hearing on the Motion. Defendant is entitled to proper notice of the opposition.

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 664.6(a) provides that “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in 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 agreement.” A writing is signed by a party if it is signed by: (1) the party; (2) an attorney who represents the party; or (3) if the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6(b)(1)-(3).)

“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.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” (Ibid.) “The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to.” (Ibid.) “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.” (Ibid.) Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 “expressly provides for the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at p. 1183.)

attests that Ryan Santa was a Claims Specialist with Liberty Mutual General Insurance Company and was legally empowered to engage in settlement negotiations on behalf of Defendant. (Matteis Decl., ¶ 3.) On December 14, 2021, Mr. Santa tendered a written offer to settle the case to Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 4 and Exhibit A.) Mr. Santa offered Plaintiff $8,960.88 to settle Plaintiff’s total claim. (Id., ¶ 5.) On or around December 23, 2021, Plaintiff endorsed and deposited the $8,960.88 settlement check. (Id., ¶ 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not signed a release of all claims including property related claims or dismissed the present action with prejudice despite having negotiated and deposited all settlement funds. (Id., ¶ 7.)

In opposition to the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Derik Sarkesians (“Sarkesians”) declares that no settlement agreement was signed. (Sarkesians Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff refused to sign the settlement release forwarded by Defendant’s representatives. (Id.) Plaintiff did not agree to any settlement terms and did not sign any agreements. (Id.)

The Court finds that Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to make a showing that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. The declaration of Matteis in support of the Motion acknowledges that Plaintiff has not signed a release of all claims. Moreover, the purported settlement agreement is not signed by any party—be it Plaintiff, Defendant, or an authorized agent of either party. (Matteis Decl., Exhibit A.) The Court cannot enforce a settlement agreement that is not signed. Defendant appears to conflate the negotiation of a settlement agreement with a valid and binding settlement agreement.

Additionally, while Defendant argues that Plaintiff endorsed and deposited the settlement check, a review of the settlement check finds such contention misplaced. The purported settlement check is payable to “The Law Offices of Daniel Kim Corporation In Trust For Carmella Gilliam.” (Matteis Decl., Exhibit B.) While there is a note on the endorsement that says “With power of attorney: Carmella Gillan,” such endorsement does not mean that Plaintiff herself endorsed the settlement check. Moreover, according to the complaint, Plaintiff’s name is Carmella Gilliam and not “Carmella Gilllan,” who is the endorser on the purported settlement check.

In sum, Defendant has not shown the existence of a valid and binding settlement agreement pursuant to Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.

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. 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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The complaint and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion contain inconsistent spellings of Plaintiff’s first name. The Court cannot ascertain if Plaintiff’s first name is “Carmella” or “Carmilla.”