Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV01304, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01304    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: R

The court has reviewed the ex parte application to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP section 664.6..  The question is whether the parties reached an agreement “orally before the court.”  It appears that they did agree on terms and Judge Cowan declared a settlement.  Defendants then added a term—confidentiality.  Initially, plaintiff did not agree, but later changed her mind.  There was a second term—cost waiver.  But that was not really a dispute.  Defendants wanted each side to bear its own costs.  Plaintiff had obtained a cost waiver, but that is no barrier to what the defense wanted.  And plaintiff was not seeking costs from the defense.

Then, for reasons never explained, defendants pulled out.

As stated, the court is unsure whether 664.6 applies given the confidentiality kerfuffle.  But plaintiff’s presentation suggests that a traditional settlement may have been reached.

The first thing the court must do is determine if there was an agreement reached “orally before the court.”  If there was, it was the agreement that caused Judge Cowan to declare the settlement, and it would not include confidentiality.  If there was not, then the court will allow plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for breach of the settlement contract.  Plaintiff can then bring a traditional summary judgment motion.  The court is prepared to hear that motion on statutory notice and, if it is denied, go to trial as quickly as possible thereafter—less than 30 days if possible.  Absent some good explanation other than buyer’s remorse, the court is curious as to why defendants elected to break their promise and why they believe that they ought to benefit from that.  In this regard, the court notes that plaintiff, in reliance on defendants’ promise, gave up her trial date.  That is sufficient to bind defendants if the evidence is undisputed.  And, since the settlement amount is in the public record due to defendants’ alleged misconduct, the confidentiality term, while it can be included, will be of little value.

As stated earlier, the court is troubled by defendant’s behavior in agreeing to a settlement, causing plaintiff to lose her trial date, and then reneging.