Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 21NWCV00326 2022-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00326, Date: 2022-12-27 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 21NWCV00326 Hearing Date: December 27, 2022 Dept: SEC

SANCHEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00326

HEARING: 12/27/22 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Sanchez’s motion to enforce settlement and for sanctions is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Ajamian moves to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 and for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.5.

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. (CCP § 664.6.) The agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable courts to give it an exact meaning. If an essential element is reserved for future agreement, it is not sufficiently definite. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4^th 793, 810-812.) The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement that is orally stipulated to before the Court. (Estate of Dipinto (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 625.)

The settlement must be signed by both the party seeking to enforce the agreement under CCP § 664.6, and the party against whom it is to be enforced. (Harris v. Rudmin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4^th 299, 305.)

Plaintiff failed to submit a properly executed settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to Ledbetter’s Declaration is only signed by Plaintiff. The court is not in receipt of any Settlement Agreement signed by GM.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.