Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV35537, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV35537 Hearing Date: November 30, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and responding papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff Shiv Andrew Arora (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City of Los Angeles”), City of West Hollywood (“City of West Hollywood”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), State of California (“State”), and Does 1-100 for negligence/statutory liability under Government Code section 815.2.
On October 22, 2020, the City of West Hollywood filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants City of Los Angeles, County, State, and Does 1-100 for indemnification. On November 20, 2020, the City of Los Angeles filed an answer. On December 27, 2021, the Court dismissed the City of West Hollywood’s cross-complaint with prejudice at its request.
On November 9, 2020, the Court dismissed the State without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On November 10, 2020, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On November 29, 2021, the Court dismissed the City of West Hollywood with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On November 13, 2020, the City of Los Angeles filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On May 5, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Arnold P. Keller as Doe 1 and Zipora Keller as Doe 2. On July 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed additional amendments stating that, having designated defendants by the incorrect names of Arnold P. Keller and Zipora Keller, Plaintiff was amending the complaint to substitute their true names, Arnold P. Keller as Trustee of Fairfax Marquis Trust (“Arnold Keller”) and Zipora Keller as Trustee of Fairfax Marquis Trust (“Zipora Keller”). On August 10, 2021, Arnold Keller and Zipora Keller filed an answer.
On August 12, 2021, Arnold Keller and Zipora Keller filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants the City of Los Angeles and Roes 1-20 for indemnity, equitable apportionment, and declaratory relief.
On January 13, 2022, the Court dismissed Arnold Keller and Zipora Keller from Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On March 14, 2022, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint filed by Arnold Keller and Zipora Keller without prejudice at their request.
On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce settlement to be heard on November 30, 2023. On November 16, 2023, the City of Los Angeles filed a declaration responding to the motion.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court enforce a settlement agreement.
The City of Los Angeles does not make a specific request.
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
Plaintiff asserts that on March 14, 2023, he and the City of Los Angeles (“City”) agreed to settle Plaintiff’s claims against the City. On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff signed and returned a release at the City’s request but he has not yet received a settlement check. Plaintiff asks the Court to enforce the settlement.
By its terms, the release contains the “entire agreement” between Plaintiff and the City. (See Yousefian Dec. ¶ 15 & Exh. A.) The release does not contain any provision ensuring payment of the settlement amount to Plaintiff by a particular date – in fact, the release, which Plaintiff and his counsel signed, states that Plaintiff acknowledges the “receipt and sufficiency” of the settlement amount.
Plaintiff does not contend that the City agreed to pay him the settlement amount without first subjecting the settlement to the City’s approval process. His complaint, apparently, is that the approval process is taking too long.
In short, Plaintiff has not identified any provision of the settlement agreement that requires the City to pay him the settlement amount by a particular date or without first receiving approval from appropriate City officials. Nor has Plaintiff shown that the City is trying to back out of the settlement agreement. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Shiv Andrew Arora's motion to enforce the settlement agreement reached with the City of Los Angeles on March 14, 2023.
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.