Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV24140, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 24STCV24140 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 Dept: 34
1.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.
2.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Seal is DENIED.
Background
On September 18, 2024, Plaintiffs Flor Velasco and Maria
Rivas (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Andre Baghoomian,
Talin Mishigian, and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendants”) arising from vehicle
accident alleging causes of action for:
1.
Motor Vehicle Negligence; and
2.
General Negligence.
On January
13, 2025, Defendant Andre Baghoomian filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint
and a cross-complaint.
On January
17, 2025, Defendants Andre Baghoomian and Talin Mishigian filed an amended
answer and a first amended cross-complaint.
On February
3, 2025, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. filed an answer to Plaintiffs’
complaint.
On March 3,
2025, at the request of Cross-Complainants Andre Baghoomian and Talin Mishigian,
the clerk entered default of Cross-Defendant Flor Velasco.
On March 10,
2025, Cross-Defendants Flor Velasco and Maria Rivas filed a General Denial to
the cross-complaint.
On March 17,
2025, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. filed this Motion to Enforce
Settlement. On April 10, 2025, Plaintiffs Flor Velasco and Maria Rivas filed an
opposition.
On March 24,
2025, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. filed this Motion to Seal. On April 15,
2025, Plaintiffs Flor Velasco and Maria Rivas filed an opposition.
1.
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Legal Standard
“If parties to pending litigation
stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)
“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide
a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without
the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prod., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60
Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges
“must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding
settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530,
1533.)
Discussion
Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs’ request for judicial
notice is granted. Judicial notice may be taken of “[f]acts and propositions
that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and
accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable
accuracy.” (Evid. Code §§ 452, subd. (c) and (h).)
Merits
Defendant Uber Technologies Inc.
(“Uber”) argues that parties informally discussed settlement prior to
litigation coming to an agreement on a settlement amount as to each of the
respective Plaintiffs which was executed on November 20, 2024. (Motion, at pp.
7-8; Chea Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also signed the settlement
agreement. (Id., at p. 7.) Uber contends that Plaintiffs’ counsel made minor,
immaterial changes to the settlement agreement and returned the agreements with
his signature to Defendants Andre Baghoomian and Talin Mishigian. (Ibid.)
Uber also contends that the settlement agreement provides that Uber and its
subsidiaries, Blue Hill Specialty Insurance, Andre Baghoomian, and Talin
Mishigian would be released from Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id., at pp. 7-8.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that
no settlement agreement exists between the parties as Uber did not participate
in negotiating it and no mutual assent was made with respect to Plaintiffs’
proposed revisions regarding the terms of release. (Opp., at p. 2.) Plaintiffs
note that none of the draft settlement agreements attached to Uber’s motion
were signed by any of the Defendants. (Id., at p. 3.) Plaintiffs also
argue that Plaintiffs’ proposed revisions to the release provisions were not
merely minor edits but substantive modifications necessary to clarify
obligations and protect the rights of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Ibid.)
Plaintiffs contend that as Plaintiffs’ proposed provisions were rejected by
Defendants Andre Baghoomian and Talin
Mishigian, there was no mutual agreement and no enforceable settlement exists.
(Id., at p. 4.) Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that Uber is the sole
defendant arguing that a valid settlement agreement was reached between the
parties, while Plaintiffs and Defendants Andre Baghoomian and Talin Mishigian
have taken the position that no settlement agreement was reached. (Id.,
at p. 8.)
The court finds that there is no
evidence of a writing signed by the parties for the court to enforce. Code of
Civil Procedure section 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.) Section 664.6 requires strict compliance. The parties participating in
informal negotiations, agreeing to settle the dispute for a sum, and failing to
produce a final settlement agreement does not meet the statutory requirements of
section 664.6, which requires a single writing containing the material terms of
the agreement and be signed by both parties. Moreover, the court
highlights that Uber concedes to not have been involved in the settlement
negotiations which explains the lack of Uber’s signature in the settlement
agreement. (Motion, at p. 6; Chea Decl., ¶ 5.) The court also notes that
Defendants Andre Baghoomian and Talin
Mishigian’s counsel has represented to Plaintiffs that no settlement agreement
exists. (Zeesman Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. B.) As such, Uber has failed to
provide evidence of a writing signed by the parties as required by section
664.6.
Accordingly, Uber’s motion is denied.
2.
Motion to Seal
Legal Standard.
A party that requests that a record or portion of a record
be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing
it. The motion must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and a declaration
containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
2.551(b)(1); Savaglio v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th
588, 597–601.) All parties that have appeared in the case must be served with a
copy of the motion or application. Unless the judge orders otherwise, a party
that already possesses copies of the records to be sealed must be served with a
complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(2).)
The moving party must lodge the record with the court in a
separate envelope when the motion or application is made, unless good cause
exists for not lodging it or it has been lodged previously. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 2.551(b)(4) and (d).) The lodged record is conditionally under seal
pending the judge's determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d), a
judge may order that a record be filed under seal only if the judge expressly
finds facts that establish all the following:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the
right of public access to the record.
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record.
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the
overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)
In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must weigh the
competing interests and concerns. This process necessitates (1) identifying the
specific information claimed to be entitled to protection from public
disclosure, (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure,
and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. (H.B.
Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.) Therefore, to prevail
on his or her motion, the moving party must present a specific enumeration of the
facts sought to be withheld and the specific reasons for withholding them. (Id.
at p. 904.)
The California Supreme Court has held that the First
Amendment provides “a right of access to ordinary civil trial and proceedings.”
(NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178,
1212.) The court further noted its belief that “the public has an interest, in
all civil cases, in observing and assessing the performance of its public
judicial system.” (Id. at 1210.) There is a presumption of openness in
civil court proceedings. (Id. at 1217.) This presumption may apply to
seemingly private proceedings. (Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 135 Cal. App.4th
1045, 1052 (divorce proceedings).) Therefore, it is up to this Court to
determine if that presumption has been overcome.
Courts must find compelling reasons, prejudice absent
sealing and the lack of less-restrictive means, before ordering filed documents
sealed. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1246; NBC
Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1208-1209
n. 25; Champion v. Super. Ct. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 777, 787.) A
compelling reason could include to protect confidential trade secrets, which
“have been recognized as a constitutionally protected intangible property
interest.” (DVD Copy Control Ass’n, Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th
864, 878, internal citations omitted.)
A proposed sealing must be narrowly tailored to serve the
overriding interest, such as by sealing portions of pleadings or redacting
text. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1052,
1070.) An application to seal must be accompanied by a declaration containing
facts sufficient to justify sealing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).)
A “contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an
overriding interest” is sufficient to justify sealing the requested documents
so long as the moving party establishes that disclosure of the information will
result in substantial prejudice. (Universal City Studio, Inc. v. Super. Ct.
(2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1283–84.)
Discussion
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
(“Uber”) moves the court to seal two exhibits attached to the declaration of
Michelle Chea filed in support of Uber’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Motion,
at p. 3.) Specifically, Uber seeks to seal exhibits B1 and B2 which contain
Plaintiffs’ settlement agreements. (Ibid.) Uber argues that the
settlement agreements provided that the terms be confidential. (Id., at
p. 4.) Thus, to honor their confidentiality, Uber seeks to seal the amounts and
terms of the agreements. (Ibid.) Uber argues that there is an overriding
interest to protect the confidential information of the settlement amount and terms
to promote future settlements. (Id., at pp. 5-6.) Uber also argues that
the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and that there are no less
restrictive means available. (Ibid.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that there
is no good cause to seal the exhibits requested. (Opp., at p. 2.) First,
Plaintiffs note that no enforceable settlement agreement actually exists
between the parties. (Id., at pp. 2-3) Plaintiffs also argue that while California
law does recognize a public policy interest in encouraging settlements, this
generalized interest cannot used to automatically override the constitutional
presumption of public access to judicial proceedings. (Ibid.) Moreover,
Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s motion is not narrowly tailored as it seeks to
seal the entirety of the exhibits, including non-sensitive terms. (Id.,
at p. 5.) Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Uber fails to show no less restrictive
means exist as Uber simply argues that none do. (Ibid.)
Although the court agrees that a
confidentiality provision may support an overriding interest, Uber’s request is
overbroad. It appears that rather than seeking to seal the specific portions or
references to specific provisions of the settlement agreement, Uber instead
broadly seeks to seal the entirety of the settlement agreements. California law
recognizes a constitutional right of access, grounded in the First Amendment,
to court proceedings and court documents. (In re Marriage of Tamir
(2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 1068, 1078.) There is no basis to seal the entirety of the
exhibits, which goes above and beyond the purpose sought for its sealing.
Moreover, Uber failed to show how sealing the exhibits would promote the
overriding interest of encouraging settlement. It is clear there is less
restrictive means to achieve such interest.
Thus, Uber’s motion is denied.
Conclusion
1.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is
DENIED.
2.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Seal is DENIED.