Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02067, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02067    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: C

Moore v. Westlake Services, LLC 23NWCV02067

This breach of contract action was filed on July 5, 2023. A Notice of Settlement was FILED on June 24, 2024. 

Plaintiff JAYSHAUD CHENEVERT's Ex Parte Application for Expedited Partial Settlement Disbursement is DENIED. 

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the parties have properly requested that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. (See 06/25/24 Minute Order.)

Procedurally, the ex parte application is defective for failure to attach a Declaration regarding notice in compliance with CRC Rule 3.1204(b). 

Substantively, Plaintiff Chenevert's ex parte application goes beyond the scope of the parties' Settlement Agreement. CCP §664.6 provides: “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.” Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, 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. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793,810.) A settlement agreement is interpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement (Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) It must be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties as it existed at the time, insofar as that intent can be ascertained and is lawful. (Id.)Pursuant to CCP §664.6, the Court has authority to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement only when the agreement is sufficiently definitive to enable the trial court to give it an exact meaning. (Weddington v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 812.)

The Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit H to the Exhibits filed in conjunction with this Ex Parte Application, can be summarized as follows: Defendant shall pay to Plaintiffs Haley N. Moore and Jayshaud Bernette Chenevert the total sum of $30,055.53 payable to "CA Consumer Attorneys, APC Client Trust Account", in consideration for Plaintiffs' return of the fully executed Settlement Agreement and a waiver of the remaining balance owed by Defendant to Plaintiffs. (See Ex Parte Application Exhibits, Ex. G.) 

Based on the evidence presented to the Court at this time, it does not appear that Defendant failed to comply with their obligations under the express terms of the Settlement Agreement. Rather, Plaintiff Chenevert requests the immediate release of $15,000.00 from the settlement funds held in trust, arguing that the settlement funds held in trust are to be distributed 50/50 split between Plaintiff Jayshaud Chenevert and Plaintiff Haley N. Moore. However, throughout the Settlement Agreement, there is no requirement stating that once the funds are paid into the trust account by Defendant, that the funds must be distributed equally between the Plaintiffs. The Settlement Agreement merely requires Defendant to pay both Plaintiffs the sum of $30,055.53, payable into a trust account. Plaintiff Chenevert's request goes beyond the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the Court is without authority to enforce Plaintiff Chenevert's request. 

Court Clerk to give notice.