Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case Number: 21STCV12123, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV12123, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Uber Technologies; Rasier, LLC; and Rasier-CA, LLC (“Moving Defendants”) move to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly entered into with Plaintiffs Jacqueline Benjamin and Ayanna Smith (“Plaintiffs.”) Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) In ruling on a motion to enter judgment, the court acts as a trier of fact. The court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. To do so, the court may receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)

The issue on a motion to enforce settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. (See Viejo v. Bancorp. (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn. 4 [“a court's power to make factual determinations under section 664.6 is generally limited to whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement”].) In other words, the only issue before the court is whether an agreement exists; not whether the agreement has been breached.

Here, following an unsuccessful global mediation on May 14, 2024, Moving Defendants and Defendant Shaoba Ma (“Ma”) continued settlement discussions with Plaintiffs. (Rogaski Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) On a June 7, 2024 phone call, Plaintiffs’ counsel orally agreed to settle the case with Moving Defendants and Ma for $120,000. (Rogaski Decl. ¶ 5(a)-(d).) Counsel for Moving Defendants followed up the phone call by sending Plaintiffs’ counsel an email and proposed settlement agreement for Plaintiffs to sign. (Rogaski Decl. ¶ 6 and Exs. A-B.) On June 12, Counsel for Moving Defendants inquired with Plaintiffs’ counsel via text message about the status of the settlement agreement, to which Plaintiffs’ counsel responded, “Don’t worry. She will sign it. I’m not taking you for a ride.” (Rogaski Decl. ¶ 7 and Ex. C.) On June 20, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel took the position that there was no settlement.

Moving Defendants contend that the text messages coming from Plaintiffs’ counsel’s cell phone constitute counsel’s electronic signature, and Plaintiffs should be bound by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representation that an agreement had been reached.

The Court disagrees. At best, the text message communication indicates Plaintiffs’ counsel’s belief that his clients would sign the settlement agreement. It is not, on its face, an agreement on Plaintiffs’ behalf or with Plaintiffs’ consent.

Therefore, having found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate that a valid and binding settlement agreement exists between the parties, the Court denies Moving Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement.