Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV09358, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09358    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             July 3, 2024

Motion to Enforce Settlement:

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Janusz Blicharski

Responding Party:       None

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

The court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement.

Background

On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff Janusz Blicharski filed a complaint against Defendants 158 S. Elm, LLC, and 1751 Cabrillo, LLC, among others alleging causes of action for (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to pay sick time; (3) failure to pay wages due in violation of Labor Code section 204(a); (4) inaccurate wage statements; (5) failure to pay for rest periods not provided; (6) failure to pay for meal periods not provided; (7) failure to page minimum wage; (8) failure to pay prevailing wage; (9) waiting time penalties; (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (11) wrongful termination in violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (12) age discrimination; (13) disability discrimination; (14) failure to prevent discrimination; (15) failure to accommodate physical disability; (16) failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of Government Code section 12940(n); (17) failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of Government Code section 12945(3); (18) refusal to provide information in violation of Labor Code section 1198.5; (19) failure to reimburse employees for required business expenses; and (20) unfair competition.

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a work-related injury to his left shoulder from lifting a 50-pound bag, and a few days after the commencement of his medical treatment, he was terminated of his employment by Defendants under the pretense that there was no more work. Plaintiff alleges his termination was wrongfully motivated by discrimination against him due to his injury. (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41.)

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants engaged in a campaign to force Plaintiff to quit because they decided he was too old to continue working. (Id., ¶ 43.) Defendants demanded Plaintiff double his workload but refused to permit him any additional time to complete his tasks. Defendant would then issue warnings, but they did not make similar demands on younger employees. (Id., ¶ 43(a).)

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants would complain about Plaintiff’s performance, holding him to a different and higher performance standard than the younger employees. (Id., ¶ 43(b).)

Plaintiff also claims that Plaintiff was denied bereavement time, vacation time, sick leave and other employment benefits that were routinely granted to younger employees. (Id., ¶ 43(c).)

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to enforce settlement.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“(a) [i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.”

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  Before an amendment was effective on January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys.  (See Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.)  The settlement had to include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement and against whom enforcement is sought.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) 

The existence of a contract “requires parties capable of contracting, their consent, a lawful object, and a sufficient cause of consideration.”  (J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1, 9 [citing Civ. Code, § 1550].)  Consent requires an offer and acceptance.  (DeLeon v. Verizon Wireless, LLC (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 800, 813.) 

If the settlement leaves material terms wanting, or confusing, the settlement cannot be enforced through the section 664.6 summary proceeding and must be addressed in a separate civil action.  (Compare Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445 [finding parties never agreed to the means that were material to the settlement, including what role an independent manager was to play regarding management of a trust property, and whether the trust should be qualified as a QTIP, thereby indicating that there was no meeting of the minds as to the material terms] with Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355 [holding trial court’s decision to extend closing date for vendor’s agreement to repurchase house did not create a material term and was within court’s power because the closing date had passed by the time the motions came on for hearing and a new closing date was necessary to grant the relief sought by both parties].) 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants 158 S. Elm, LLC and 1751 Cabrillo, LLC. Plaintiff argues that the parties reached a settlement of the Action during a Mandatory Settlement conference held on June 8, 2023, which Plaintiff contends was formalized in a Settlement Agreement and Release At Mandatory Settlement Conference (the “Settlement Agreement”) which was executed by Plaintiff on June 27, 2023 and forwarded to Defendants’ counsel on June 29, 2023. (Schelly Decl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff argues the Settlement Agreement expressly requires that Defendants make their settlement payment to Plaintiff “within 30 days of Plaintiff’s execution of the Release.” Moreover, Plaintiff argues, the Settlement Agreement provides that “should any party to this Agreement need to institute any legal action to enforce the Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs.” (Id., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff further states that at the Court’s August 21, 2023 Order to Show Cause hearing, Defendant’s counsel told this Court that they needed more time to finalize the settlement. Since that day, Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to contact defense counsel regarding the settlement via telephone and email without response. (Id., ¶ 4.)

As noted above, strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Plaintiff has not provided the purported settlement agreement to the court in order for the court to review it. Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 requires a writing signed by the parties. Plaintiff does not state that Defendants’ counsel or Defendants have signed the writing, only that it was executed by Plaintiff and forwarded to Defendants’ counsel. As such, the court cannot enforce the purported settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 if it is not signed by both parties.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is DENIED without prejudice.

            It is so ordered.

Dated: July 3, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court