Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV40269, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40269    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff Austin Richard Moreno (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants John Joseph Keith (“Keith”), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Does 1- 50 for violation of statute/breach of mandatory duty and negligence. 

On January 14, 2022, Defendants County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) (“County”) and Keith filed an answer. 

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.  The Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) August 23, 2024. 

On August 16, 2024, the County’s counsel filed a declaration stating that (1) the settlement agreement contained a clause that made the settlement contingent on approval by the Board of Supervisors, (2) the approval process would take 6-9 months or more because the Sheriff’s Department, the County CEO Office, and the Claims Board had to approve the settlement before it could be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, and (3) the County’s counsel could not control the agendas of these government entities.  Counsel stated: “On January 3, 2024, our office received the final executed documents. The documents were thereafter forwarded to the County for processing.  [¶] On August 15, 2024, the County advised that the Department and CEO office were still working on approvals.  Once approved, it can then be presented to the Claims Board.”  (Mallory dec. 8/16/24 ¶¶ 4-5.)  Counsel asked the Court for an additional 90 days to facilitate the settlement. 

On August 23, 2024, the Court continued the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) to November 21, 2024. 

On November 20, 2024, the County’s counsel filed a declaration repeating the information in his August 16, 2024 declaration and also stating that “On November 19, 2024, the County advised that the Department and CEO office were still working on approvals. Once approved, it can be presented to the Claims Board.” (Mallory dec. 11/20/24 ¶ 6.)  Counsel asked the Court for an additional 90 days to facilitate the settlement. 

On November 21, 2024, the Court continued the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) to March 10, 2025. 

On March 6, 2025, the County’s counsel filed a declaration repeating the information in his August 16 and November 20, 2024 declarations and also stating that “On March 6, 2025, the County advised that the Department and CEO office were still working on approvals. Once approved, it can be presented to the Claims Board.”  (Mallory dec. 3/6/25 ¶ 7.)  Counsel asked the Court for an additional 90 days to facilitate the settlement.  On March 10, the Court continued the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) to June 17, 2025. 

On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement.  On April 1, 2025, the County filed an opposition.  On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to enforce a settlement agreement and award attorney’s fees. 

The County asks the Court to deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD                   

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a) provides in part: 

“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. . . .” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) 

In deciding motions made under Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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 contends that the County has failed to perform its obligations under the parties’ January 3, 2024 settlement agreement, has unjustifiably delayed in sending Plaintiff the settlement check, and has failed to provide any update about when Plaintiff will receive the settlement check.  According to Plaintiff, the County promised to send the settlement check by February 2025 but the check did not arrive.  Accusing the County of bad faith, Plaintiff asks the Court to enforce the settlement agreement and order the County to pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. 

The County opposes the motion, observing that the settlement is subject to the approval of the Claims Board and the Board of Supervisors.  (See Exh. A to Conroy Dec.; Exh. 1 to Valdez Dec. [County’s agreement to pay Plaintiff is “Subject to the approval of the Los Angeles County’s Contract Cities Claims Board and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors”].) 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the Court may enter judgment “pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)  The settlement here, however, does not require the County to pay the entire settlement amount by a particular date.  Rather, “Settlement of this matter is contingent upon and shall be deemed settled only upon the acceptance of the terms set forth herein by the Los Angeles County’s Contract Cities Claims Board and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (hereinafter ‘THE GOVERNING BODIES’).” (Exh. 1 to Valdez Dec., ¶ 7.)  The settlement agreement also states: “Plaintiff has been advised and hereby acknowledges that the County of Los Angeles cannot begin the process of having this settlement considered by THE GOVERNING BODIES until Defense Counsel has received the executed Long Form Settlement Agreement from Plaintiff’s Counsel.  Plaintiff further acknowledges that she has been advised and understands that it can take up to and including twelve (12) months from Defense Counsel’s receipt of the Long Form Settlement Agreement for THE GOVERNING BODIES to render a decision as to whether to accept the proposed settlement.”  (Exh. 1 to Valdez Dec., ¶ 8.) 

The County has presented evidence that the settlement agreement has been proceeding and will continue to proceed through this approval process.  (See Valdez Dec. ¶¶ 6-12.) 

Ordering payment of the entire settlement amount by a particular date would not enforce a term of the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 but would instead create a material term, which the Court may not do. 

The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Austin Richard Moreno’s motion to enforce settlement and for attorney’s fees. 

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.