Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV17397, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17397    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiffs Dwain Sibrie-Smith (“Sibrie-Smith”) and Benjamin Yang (“Yang”) filed this action against Defendants Drop N Go Deliveries (“DNG”), Amazon Logistics, Inc. (“Amazon”), Mary Roberts (“Mary Roberts”), William Roberts (“William Roberts”), and Does 1-50 for negligence and negligence per se. 

On June 29, 2022, DNG filed an answer. On July 7, 2022, Amazon filed an answer. 

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add Defendant Adolfo Mendez (“Mendez) as Doe 1.  On September 28, 2022, Mendez filed an answer. 

On October 27, 2022, Mary Roberts and William Roberts filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants DNG and Roes 1-50 for indemnification and apportionment of fault. 

On October 31, 2022, Mary Roberts and William Roberts filed a first amended cross-complaint adding Cross-Defendants Amazon and Mendez. On November 10, 2022, DNG, Amazon and Mendez filed an answer. 

On August 1, 2023, Sibrie-Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to enforce settlement to be heard on October 3, 2023. On September 19, 2023, DNG and Mendez (“Defendants”) filed an opposition. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff requests that the Court enforce a settlement agreement and order Defendants to pay 10% interest on the settlement amount and attorney's fees. 

Defendants request that the Court deny the motion. 

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 he and Defendants entered into an agreement on May 16, 2023, to settle the case in return for Defendant’s payment to him of $119,000.00.  Defendants sent Plaintiff a release to review.  Plaintiff's counsel proposed modifications to the release. Defendants have not responded to the proposed modifications or paid Plaintiff $119,000.  Plaintiff demands $119,000 with 10 percent interest plus attorney’s fees and costs. 

To support his contention that the parties agreed to settle the case, Plaintiff has submitted (1) a May 9, 2023 email from Defendants’ counsel to Plaintiff’s counsel stating, “Please see below offers in response to Plaintiffs’ demand made 5/8/23.  Smith -- $119,000 -- full and final” and (2) a May 16, 2023, email from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel stating, “Please be advised that Plaintiff Dwain Sibrie-Smith accepts defendants' offer to settle this matter globally for $119,000.00. Please send the release.”  

Defendants deny the existence of an enforceable settlement, asserting Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 applies only when the parties themselves, rather than their lawyers, have signed the settlement agreement.  Defendants are mistaken.  Effective January 1, 2021, the statute provides: “For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: . . .  (2) An attorney who represents the party.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) 

Defendants also argue that no enforceable settlement agreement exists because the parties did not agree to all the material terms.  In particular, Defendants assert the parties have not reached an agreement about whether the release will include a confidentiality provision. 

“A settlement is an agreement to terminate or forestall all or part of a lawsuit. . . . Compromise settlements are governed by the legal principles applicable to contracts generally.” (Gorman v. Holte (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 984, 988.) “The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.” (Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 777.) 

“ ‘An essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, or mutual assent.’ [Citation.] Further, the consent of the parties to a contract must be communicated by each party to the other. [Citation.] ‘Mutual assent is determined under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations or expressions of the parties, i.e., the reasonable meaning of their words and acts, and not their unexpressed intentions or understandings.’ [Citation.].” (Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165, 173.) "The test is—did the minds of the parties meet; that a proposal for a contract was made by one party and accepted by another; that the parties definitely understood and agreed upon the terms of the contract.” (Kreling v. Walsh (1947) 77 Cal.App.2d 821, 834; see also Blix Street Records, Inc. v. Cassidy (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 39, 48 [“When parties intend that an agreement be binding, the fact that a more formal agreement must be prepared and executed does not alter the validity of the agreement”].) 

Here, the parties agreed to settle Plaintiff’s claims in return for payment of $119,000. The fact that Defendants’ counsel drafted a formal written release does not dispel the parties' intent to be bound by their email correspondence agreeing to a settlement.  Similarly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s request that Defendants’ counsel “send the release” did not condition the settlement on the execution of a formal release document. 

Defendants have identified no failure to reach a meeting of the minds on any material point in the agreement described in Defendants' counsel’s emailed offer and Plaintiff’s counsel’s emailed acceptance.  Defendants offered, and Plaintiff accepted, a settlement of Plaintiff’s claims for $119,000.  The terms were “ ‘reasonably certain’ ” such that they provided a basis to assess the parties' obligations. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811.)  Therefore, the Court grants the motion. 

Plaintiff does not identify the legal authority for his request for 10 percent interest on the settlement amount of $119,000.00 from May 16, 2023, through the date of the Court’s order.  Civil Code section 3287 authorizes an award of 7 percent prejudgment interest when “the right to recover [damages certain, or capable of being made certain] . . . is vested in the person upon a particular day . . . .”  (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a).)  Plaintiff has not shown that he was entitled to receive the settlement amount on a particular day.  Therefore, the Court denies the request for prejudgment interest. 

The Court also denies the request for attorney's fees.  Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees based on a clause in the release, which the parties have not signed and which the Court is not enforcing. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Dwain Sibrie-Smith’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement reached by the parties on May 16, 2023. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Dwain Sibrie-Smith’s request for prejudgment interest. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Dwain Sibrie-Smith’s request 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.