Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV27638, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV27638 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 20STCV27638
On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Jill Johnson-Bokelberg (“Johnson-Bokelberg”) and Christopher Scott filed this action against Defendants Ofelia Hagnazar Gharebeigi, Roben Gharabeigi, Nairi Karapetian, Nakisha Latong Washington (“Washington”), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle negligence, negligence (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 815.4, and 820 et seq.), and negligence per se.
On August 26, 2020, the County filed an answer. On March 25, 2021, the Court dismissed the County from the complaint without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On September 14, 2020, Washington and LACMTA filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Ofelia Hagnazar Gharebeigi and Roes 1-10 for total indemnity, equitable indemnity on a comparative fault basis, declaratory relief, and motor vehicle negligence. On October 26, 2020, Cross-Defendant Ofelia Hagnazar Gharebeigi filed an answer.
On October 26, 2020, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Ofelia Hagnazar Gharebeigi, Roben Gharabeigi, and Nairi Karapetian filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross- Defendants Johnson-Bokelberg, Washington, LACMTA, the County, and Roes 1-100 for indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief. On November 19, 2020, Johnson- Bokelberg filed an answer. On November 23, 2020, the County filed an answer. On December 1, 2020, Washington and LACMTA filed an answer. On March 25, 2021, the Court dismissed Johnson-Bokelberg and the County from the cross-complaint with prejudice at Cross- Complainants’ request. On May 12, 2021, the Court again dismissed Johnson-Bokelberg from the cross-complaint with prejudice.
On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Defendant Sosy’s Flower’s [sic] & Gifts as Doe 1.
On September 6, 2022, the Court dismissed Defendants Ofelia Hagnazar Gharebeigi, Roben Gharabeigi, and Nairi Karapetian with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On November 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a notice of conditional settlement.
B. Case number 20STCV47135
On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Ofelia Hagnazar Gharebeigi filed a complaint against Defendants LACMTA and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On February 1, 2021, LACMTA filed an answer.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On May 20, 2021, the Court found that case numbers 20STCV27638 and 20STCV47135 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). On November 10, 2021, the Court consolidated the cases.
D. Motion to enforce settlement
On August 1, 2023, Johnson-Bokelberg filed a motion to enforce a settlement and award judgment and sanctions against LACMTA. On September 7, 2023, LACMTA filed an opposition and request for sanctions.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Johnson-Bokelberg requests that the Court enforce a settlement agreement, enter judgment for Johnson-Bokelberg for $74,147.67, and impose $9,147.67 in sanctions on LACMTA.
LACMTA requests that the Court deny the motion and impose sanctions of $2,300.00 on Johnson-Bokelberg.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides in part:
“(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.
“(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:
“(1) The party.
“(2) An attorney who represents the party.
“(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, subds. (a), (b).)
In deciding motions made under section 664.6, courts “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) On a motion to enforce a settlement under section 664.6, courts have the power to decide disputed facts and to interpret the agreement. (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566; L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶¶ 12:977–12:978.5, pp. 12(ll)-139 to 12(ll)-140.) Courts may receive evidence, determine disputed facts including the terms the parties previously agreed on, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but they may not create new material terms. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.)
DISCUSSION
Johnson-Bokelberg asserts that, on June 29, 2022, she and LACMTA entered into a written settlement agreement which is attached as an exhibit to her counsel’s declaration. According to Johnson-Bokelberg, the settlement agreement requires that LACMTA pay Johnson-Bokelberg $74,147.67. Johnson-Bokelberg argues that LACMTA has breached the agreement.
LACMTA does not dispute that the parties agreed to settle the case and acknowledges that “a significant amount of time has passed since receipt of all signed Releases.” (Opposition p. 4.) According to LACMTA, however, the parties did not agree on a deadline for payment of the settlement amount to Johnson-Bokelberg. LACMTA attributes the delay in payment to the need for Claims Committee approval of the settlement, which occurred after Johnson-Bokelberg filed her motion to enforce the settlement.
Despite Johnson-Bokelberg’s understandable frustration at the delay in receiving her settlement check, her motion to enforce the settlement is frivolous. Johnson-Bokelberg’s arguments are not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f)((2)(A)). She cannot satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 because she cannot show that the parties “stipulate[d], in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) The email exchanges on which Johnson-Bokelberg alternately appears to rely make it clear that the settlement was conditioned on approval by the Claims Committee.
A motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 must be “made separately from other motions or requests . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(A).) In addition, “[i]f the alleged action or tactic is the making or opposing of a written motion . . . that can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected, a notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court, unless 21 days after service of the motion or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged action or tactic is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(B).) LACMTA has not complied with these prerequisites to the Court’s consideration of a sanctions motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Therefore, the Court denies LACMTA’s request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Jill Johnson-Bokelberg’s motion to enforce settlement.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Jill Johnson-Bokelberg’s request for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s request for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.