SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Dennis Garr (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Matthew Marcus Fraijo (“Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. 

Defendants now move to enforce the settlement of the matter pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Defendants aver this matter proceeded to mediation on December 16, 2022 before the Honorable Joseph S. Biderman, in which the material terms of the prospective settlement were negotiated between the parties. On December 20, 2022, Judge Biderman informed the parties that Plaintiff had accepted Defendants’ settlement offer and Defendants were requested to prepare a Settlement Agreement. Defendants contend the Settlement Agreement was signed by all parties and their respective counsel of record in early March 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel received the settlement check, but then informed defense counsel that the check could not be deposited because of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff. Defendants aver that as of the motion filing date, they have received no further communication from Plaintiff’s counsel.  

Plaintiff, in pro per, filed an unsigned opposition, stating undue influence and misrepresentation. Notably, Plaintiff is still represented by counsel of record, and it is unclear to the Court the reason for Plaintiff filing on his own behalf.  

 

II. Legal Standard 

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6: “If 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.” 

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. 

(CCP §664.6(b).)  

 

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.)  Thus, to enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties.  (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.) “If no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed.”  (Civ. Code, § 1657; see also Patel v. Liebermensch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 344, 352, fn. omitted [“In the absence of a specified time of payment, a reasonable period is allowable under Civil Code section 1657.”].)   

Here, Defendants do not attach any evidence of the purported Settlement Agreement signed by Plaintiff, nor do they provide any other documents signed by the parties that the Court may interpret as a settlement and enforce.  (Gallo v. Getz (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 329, 333.) The Court may not enforce a settlement under Section 664.6 where there is no “writing signed by the parties.” Defense counsel’s declaration that a Settlement Agreement signed by all parties exists, without providing a copy of such, is insufficient. Section 664.6 requires strict compliance.  

Therefore, because there is no evidence of any signed agreement, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.  

 Finally, according to the Court’s records, Plaintiff is still represented by counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to update the Court as to the status of the case. The Court sets an OSC re: Status of Case on March 4, 2024 at 8:30 am. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to appear. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.