Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV06181, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV06181    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

DENIS ALBERTO ARGENAL ESPINOSA, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

SHAMEA ITOHAN OGIAMIEN, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 20STCV06181 (C/W CASE NO. 20STCV16094) 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

October 31, 2023   

 SCOTT KUHN, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

       

 

 

I. Background 

On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff Scott Kuhn (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. 

At this time, Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement of the matter pursuant to CCP § 664.6. The motion is unopposed. 

Plaintiff argues in April 2023, settlement was reached between Plaintiff and MTA in this matter for the amount of $47,500. Plaintiff signed a release on April 19, 2023, and forwarded the signed release to Defendant, along with the W-9 and request for dismissal. Since the sending of the closing documents on May 4, 2023 to MTA’s counsel, Plaintiff has not received the settlement check.  

 

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.”].)   

Plaintiff does not attach any evidence of a settlement agreement signed by Defendant. Plaintiff provides only the release of all claims signed by Plaintiff. The Court may not enforce a settlement under Section 664.6 where there is no “writing signed by the parties.”  Further, Plaintiff provides no other documents signed by both parties that the Court may interpret as settlement and enforce.  (Gallo v. Getz (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 329, 333 [letters of the settlement agreement signed only by plaintiff’s attorney were not sufficient under Section 664.6, but the draft issued by the insurer payable to plaintiff and his attorney, signed by insurer and drawn from insurer’s bank, and endorsed by plaintiff and his attorney in final settlement of the claim was sufficient to be a writing signed by both parties].) Section 664.6 requires strict compliance. 

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

  

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 30th day of October, 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court