SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

  

I. Background 

On October 28, 2021, Plaintiff Brianna Sims (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Go Green Ambulance Corp (“Go Green”) and James P. Burke (“Burke”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. 

At this time, Plaintiff moves to enforce the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) pursuant to CCP § 664.6.  Defendants oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.   

Plaintiff attests the Agreement was reached for the total amount of $25,000.00. Plaintiff avers the terms of the Agreement required Defendants to make an initial payment of $10,000 and three subsequent monthly payments of $5,000 in exchange for Plaintiff’s dismissal of her claims against Defendants. To date, Defendants have paid $20,000. However, the check for the last $5,000 payment “bounced.” Plaintiff contends that this is the second time a check had “bounced,” and it was previously rectified by Defendants sending the funds via wire transfer. However, in terms of the last installment, Plaintiff avers that Defendants have ignored Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for status of the final payment after receiving a bad check. Plaintiff seeks sanctions for attorney’s costs and fees in the amount of $1,647 for bringing this motion, and additionally request 1.5% per week of interest fees on the remaining $5,000 amount. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against both Defendants and defense counsel. 

In opposition, Defendants concede that the Court has retained jurisdiction over the parties to enforce settlement until performance in full terms of the Agreement. Defendants’ only opposition is specific to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and interest payment. Defense counsel contends that there is no authority to enforce those terms under CCP § 664.6, and that defense counsel cannot be held responsible for any default by Defendants. 

In reply, Plaintiff withdraws her request for sanctions against defense counsel, and requests judgment per the terms of the Agreement against Defendants only.  

 

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.) 

“[i]f 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.”].)   

The Agreement submitted by Plaintiff is signed by Plaintiff and Defendant Go Green through its CEO/director/shareholder Toby Feldman.  (Id. at page 7.)  Further, the agreement contains all material terms for the settlement, and Defendants have not been dismissed.  (Weddington Productions, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 797-98.)  Although Defendant Burke did not sign the Agreement, Burke benefited from the settlement agreement as a third-party beneficiary, wherein Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire action. (See Provost v. Regents of University of California (App. 4 Dist. 2011) 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 [Statutory procedure to enforce stipulation for settlement does not require that the agreement be executed by every party to the action who benefits from it, even if indirectly, such as a third-party beneficiary. Trial court judgment enforcing state university's stipulation for settlement with its former employee was also valid as to individual defendants who did not sign the settlement agreement, since the individual defendants were third party beneficiaries, where the agreement stated that the “case is settled as to all claims” and that the “entire action” was dismissed with prejudice.].) Accordingly, the statutory requirements of Section 664.6 have been met. 

 

Furthermore, the Agreement provides in pertinent part the terms of the payment and payment due dates: 

 

1. Monetary Consideration. Green agrees to pay the total sum of twenty-five thousand dollars and zero cents ($25,000.00) to Sims (the "Settlement Amount")', as set forth below: 

 

a. On or before April I, 2023, Green and Burke shall collectively pay the sum of Ten Thousand dollars and zero cents ($10,000.00) to Sims; 

b. and shall make three payments by check in the amount of $5,000 each, which shall be mailed to Los Angeles City Law, 7961 W. 3rd Street, Los Angeles, California 90048, and postmarked on or before the following dates: May 1, 2023, June 1, 2023 and July 1, 2023, to complete the Settlement Amount;. 

 

... 

 

d. Failure to make any of the payments set forth in this Section l shall constitute a material default under the Agreement (the "Default"); 

 

(Mot. Exh. 1; Agreement, Section 1.) (emphasis original.) 

 

The Agreement also provides in pertinent part the legal rate of interest should payment not be made on or before each due date: 

For avoidance of doubt, in the event a payment is not made on or before each due date as required in Section l, Green agrees, as set forth in Exhibit B hereto, to the immediate entry of judgment against Green for (i) the full Settlement Amount less any payments made toward the Settlement Amount prior to such entry of judgment, (ii) plus interest at the applicable legal rate of interest for judgments rendered in the State of California, as provided for in Article XV, Section l of the California Constitution, from and after the date of Default to the date of the entry of judgment, and (iii) plus Sim's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in seeking to have the Stipulated Judgment entered. 

 

(Mot. Exh. 1; Agreement, Section 1.2.) (emphasis added.) 

 

 

And lastly, the Agreement provides in pertinent part the rights of the prevailing party to recover costs, expenses, interest, and attorneys’ fees incurred by way of enforcement of the Agreement’s provisions: 

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties further acknowledge and agree that in any action at law or in equity to enforce any of the provisions or rights under this Agreement, including but not limited to entry and enforcement of the Stipulated Judgment, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover from the unsuccessful Party all costs, expenses, prejudgment interest at the default interest rate, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the prevailing Party (including, without limitation, such costs, expenses and fees on appeal) and, if such prevailing Party shall recover judgment in any such action or proceeding, such costs, expenses, prejudgment interest at the default interest rate, and fees, shall be included as part of the judgment. In addition to the foregoing award of attorneys' fees and costs, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees incurred in any post-judgment proceedings to enforce any judgment or award and any appellate proceedings. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this provision into any judgment. 

(Mot. Exh. 1; Agreement, Section 3.2.) (emphasis added.) 

 

The Agreement straightforwardly provides express terms for breach of the contract, and the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in enforcement of the agreement. Defendants do not present any argument that the specific terms of the Agreement are unenforceable, or that the parties did not come to a meeting of the minds on all material points when effectuating the subject agreement. Defendant’s contention that CCP § 664.6 does not provide for sanctions and interest is unpersuasive when the plain language of CCP § 664.6 vests the Court with the power to enforce the full of the terms of the settlement as long as strict compliance with the statutory requirements have been met, as it has here. (See Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 1367 [Court enforced settlement which included a stipulated award of $72,500 for attorney fees and costs, and the court was not permitted to modify the existing settlement agreement by reducing the award of attorney fees and costs without the mutual consent of the parties].) While a judge has the authority under CCP § 664.6 to resolve reasonable disputes over the terms of the settlement, a judge has no authority to impose on the parties more restrictive, less restrictive, or different terms than those contained in their settlement agreement. (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 779, 792 [judge erred in entering judgment that was different from terms of parties' stipulated settlement; parties are entitled to judgment pursuant to terms of their settlement and nothing more].) 

It is undisputed that Defendants failed to make the final payment of $5,000 on or before July 1, 2023, and that the final installment has still not been paid. Furthermore, the Agreement provides express terms for recovery for judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff seeks costs and attorneys’ fees amounting to $1,647 in total. Furthermore, the Agreement provides that interest is to be calculated pursuant to Cal. Const. Art XV, 1, which provides that interest shall be 7 percent per annum. From the date of the breach on July 1, 2023 based on $5,000 at 7% per annum is $71.92.  

 

III. Conclusion 

Therefore, the motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED against Defendants for the unpaid remaining amount of $5,000, $1,647 for attorneys’ fees and costs, and $71.92 for interest. The Court intends to enter judgment in the total sum of $6,718.92.