Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21SMCV01747, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 21SMCV01747    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: I

The motion to enforce the settlement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

This is a motion to enforce a settlement.  The motion is brought pursuant to CCP section 664.6.  That statute allows a streamlined procedure to enforce a settlement agreement: the agreement can be enforced by way of a motion even if the facts surrounding the agreement are in dispute.  However, there generally must be a signed settlement agreement, and there is no such agreement here.  Plaintiff is wrong when plaintiff states that the agreement must be signed by the parties; the agreement can be signed by counsel.  But there must be a written agreement.  That simply did not happen here, or at least the court has not seen the written agreement.  An exchange of emails is not sufficient.  The statute also allows enforcement where the stipulation of settlement has been reflected orally in open court.  As the court understands the statute, though, that requires more than a statement from counsel that the case has settled; the parties (or counsel) must also set forth the settlement’s terms and affirm agreement.  That was not done.

But that does not mean that there is no agreement at all.  A settlement is a contract like any other.  Accordingly, the court will allow defendant to amend the answer to allege release as an affirmative defense.  If there was in fact a contract along the lines that defendant suggests, then the release contained therein would be a complete defense to the instant action, or, relatedly, there could be an argument for novation.  In either event, the court will allow the answer to be amended to so allege.  At that point, defendant can enforce the agreement the old fashioned way: by way of summary judgment motion if the facts are undisputed or by moving to bifurcate the trial and try this defense first.

The court does note on oddity.  At least according to plaintiff, defendant is at least part of the problem here.  The parties had achieved a handshake deal and plaintiff sent the papers over to the defense.  The defense, however, would not sign.  Defendant wanted to see how a ballot measure went, presumably (one might infer) in that if it went one way, defendant would not want to go forward on the terms as discussed.  The ballot measure went the other way and defendant was then on board, but by then plaintiff did not want to leave (because the offending other tenant was vacating).  According to plaintiff, this means that there never was an actual agreement.  On the other hand, defendant suggests that plaintiff accepted the benefits of the deal before repudiating it.  That might very well be enough to enforce the release.  (There is also the question whether defendant’s alleged statement that it wanted to see the outcome of the ballot proposition constituted a rejection of the offer.  If not, and if plaintiff did not then withdraw the offer, then the offer remained open and when defendant accepted it unconditionally, it was too late for plaintiff to withdraw the offer.)  Plaintiff also contends that there was fraud by concealment.  The court will not address that issue at this time.

The court need not, and does not, reach the question whether there is a binding settlement outside of the 664.6 context.  Because the motion is brought under 664.6, it must be DENIED.  However, the denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a motion for leave to amend the answer as discussed above.