Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 22NWCV00443 2022-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00443, Date: 2022-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00443 Hearing Date: December 27, 2022 Dept: SEC

AJAMIAN v. THRIFTY CLEANERS

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00443

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

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ajamian’s motion to enforce settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 is DENIED.

Opposing Parties to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Ajamian moves to enforce the settlement agreement 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. (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. Instead, Plaintiff argues in Reply that “Defense Counsel’s email on August 3^rd, 2022 satisfy the legal requirements of a writing memorializing the settlement terms and his signature.” (Reply, 4:22-25.) However, the August 3^rd email attached to the Rokita Declaration as Ex. B clearly states, “This is obviously not a full and final agreement and doesn’t include the standard terms that would be included in a typical settlement agreement,” and is unsigned. For an electronic signature to satisfy the $664.6 requirement that the agreement be signed by the parties, there must be evidence that the parties agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means and that the signing party intended with his or her printed name to sign the electronic record, in accordance with California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (20114) 232 Cal.App.4^th 974, 989.)

Here, there is no evidence of any such agreement to have the parties sign by electronic means. Further, the correspondence between the parties’ attorneys indicate that the parties were still negotiating the terms of settlement. (Joens Decl., ¶ 4, Exs.1-11.)

The court finds that Plaintiff failed to submit a properly executed settlement agreement. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.