Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV17163, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17163    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

FLOYD CHESTER BUTLER and EARTHA CAROL BUTLER, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

REVOLUTION FOODS, INC., ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV17163 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT   

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 14, 2024 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiffs, Floyd Chester Butler and Eartha Carol Butler (“Eartha”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Revolution Foods Inc., Carlos Villa Gomez, and Keith Melchor for damages arising from an automobile collision. On July 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case providing the parties entered into a conditional settlement.   

Plaintiffs now move for an order enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6.  Defendants Revolution Foods, Inc. (“Revolution”) and Carlos Villa Gomez (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiffs filed a reply.   

 

  1. Moving Argument 

Plaintiffs argue the case settled at mediation on July 12, 2023 for $2,500,000, and that a signed release and settlement agreement was provided to Defendants. Plaintiffs contend a final Conditional Payment Letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) demonstrates that the applicable Medicare lien of $114.89 had been paid in full, and that Medicare is not claiming any further reimbursement from the settlement proceeds. 

However, Plaintiffs argue Aspen American Insurance Company, the umbrella insurance company, refuses to send their portion of the check until receipt of a “final lien letter” from CMS. Plaintiffs aver they have repeatedly provided documentary proof from CMS that the $114.89 Medicare lien has been paid, and that Medicare is no longer asserting any lien. Despite Plaintiff agreeing to indemnify the insurance company and confirmation of no Medicare lien, the insurance company is holding back $1,000,000 of the settlement for a “final lien”.   

 

  1. Opposing Argument 

Defendants contend Plaintiffs have not met the prerequisites to enforce settlement under CCP § 664.6. They also argue that there is an issue of an outstanding issue of Plaintiff’s finalized Medicare lien, because Defendants uncovered at least one Medicare payment of around $20,000. Defendants argue Medicare has not been notified of the entirety of Plaintiff’s treatment to finalize the lien amount, and that there exists the threat of Defendants being responsible for Medicare liens not contemplated as part of the settlement. Defendants argue that there is no evidence of an enforceable General release, and that  no enforceable terms have been agreed upon. Alternatively, Defendants request the entirety of the settlement funds to the Court for release to Plaintiff once a final lien letter is received, confirming that the lien is satisfied. 

 

  1. Reply Argument 

Plaintiffs reassert that there is no outstanding Medicare lien to justify withholding $1 million of the agreed upon settlement for a lien that Medicare confirmed is no longer outstanding. Plaintiffs aver they are at a loss of what additional proof Defendants seek when Medicare has expressly stated the lien has been satisfied, provided a final close out letter, and has closed its file.  

Further, Medicare did not include all of Plaintiff’s treatment, because Plaintiff elected to obtain most of her treatment on a private lien basis. Thus, there is no reason for Medicare to assert a lien on treatment it did not pay, and there is no basis for Defendants to second guess Medicare’s own confirmation of no lien. 

 

II. Motion to Enforce Settlement  

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 § 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.) 

Here, there is no evidence of a writing signed by the parties for the Court to enforce. Plaintiffs provide a copy of a “Full Release of All Claims” agreement, which is signed by Plaintiff Eartha and her counsel only. CCP § 664.6 “require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.”  (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.)    

The statutory requirements of section 664.6 have not been met. The Court need not reach the issue of the Medicare lien. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is DENIED.   

 

Moving party 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 13th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court