Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00557, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21LBCV00557    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: S27

Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Assistance at Home Care, moves to enforce the parties’ settlement pursuant to CCP §664.6.  §664.6 permits the Court to enforce a settlement either “in a writing signed by the parties” or “orally before the court.”  §664.6(b)(2) permits attorneys to sign agreements on behalf of their clients. 

Exhibit A to the motion is a §998 offer to compromise propounded on Assistance by Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, Global Regency Senior Care Services, LLC.  The offer, however, is not signed.  Instead, Global’s attorney typed /s/ Miao Yu.  The Court could not locate any authority concerning whether a typed "signature” is effective.  It did, however, locate J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4^th 974, 989, wherein the Court held that an electronic signature can only satisfy the §664.6 signature requirement if there is evidence that the parties agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means and that the signing party intended his printed name to constitute a signature. 

The moving papers lack any evidence concerning the parties’ intentions with respect to a typewritten signature.  It is not clear why Counsel did not simply sign the agreement.  The Court will hear argument on this issue at the time of the hearing, but is inclined to deny the motion on the ground that the moving papers did not include a signed copy of the parties’ settlement agreement with a proper signature. 

The parties are reminded that there is a OSC re: dismissal on calendar today concurrently with the hearing on the above motion.  The Court asks the parties to make arrangements to appear remotely at the OSC and hearing on the motion.