Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01206685, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by Arnn J. Rider

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Arnn J. Rider (“Plaintiff”) files a Motion to Enforce Settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 states:

“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.

“In order to be enforceable pursuant to the summary procedures of section 664.6, a settlement agreement must either be entered into orally before a court (a possibility not involved here) or must be in writing and signed by the parties.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.)  “The reason for the party-signature requirement is that ‘settlement is such a serious step that it requires the client’s knowledge and express consent.’”  (Ibid.)

“On a motion to enforce, the court must determine whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding.”  (Estate of Jones (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 948, 952, reh'g denied (Sept. 15, 2022), review denied (Nov. 30, 2022).)  “The court assesses whether the material terms of the settlement were reasonably well-defined and certain, and whether the parties expressly acknowledged that they understood and agreed to be bound by those terms.”  (Ibid.)  “It may interpret the settlement terms and conditions, but it cannot impose terms to which the parties did not agree.”  (Ibid.)

“The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court's factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.”  (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)

Here, it does not appear that the September 12, 2022 email is sufficient to state that the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement.  The email from Plaintiff’s counsel on 09/12/2022 states that the email was drafted “to make sure we [the parties] are on the same page for purposes of [defense counsel] drafting up a proposed settlement agreement.”  Plaintiff does not establish that the proposed settlement agreement was later drafted and that the parties agreed to the settlement terms.

As a result it does not seem that there was a clear meeting of the minds between the parties, and the Court finds that a settlement was not reached which is unfortunate.  Moreover, when the September 12, 2022 emails were sent, a final settlement agreement had not yet been drafted – which would likely have  included additional material terms.

The Motion is DENIED.  The court finds that the September 12, 2022 email exchange is insufficient under the circumstances to establish that a binding and enforceable settlement agreement was reached by the parties.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 992, as modified (Dec. 30, 2014) [stating that no court thus far has held that a printed name on an email satisfies the strict requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6].)

Defendants/Cross-Complainants to give notice.