Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: KC062564, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC062564 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: K
Plaintiffs’ Motion Compelling Payment by Defendant Alfred Jesus Hernandez According to Terms of Settlement Agreement, or in the alternative, to Enter Judgment Against Defendant Alfred Jesus Hernandez in the Amount of $30,000.00 plus Interest and Sanctions Against Defenant Alfred Jesus Hernandez and his Counsel is DENIED.
Background
On November 18, 2011, Plaintiffs Edgar Eduardo Magana (“Magana”), a minor through his guardian ad litem, Beatriz Falcon (“Falcon”) and Oscar Magana, parents to Oscar David Magana, deceased (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Alfred Jesus Hernandez (“Hernandez”), City of West Covina (“City”), Los Angeles County (“County”), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for:
(1) Negligence;
(2) Wrongful Death;
(3) Survival Action; and
(4) Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress.
On March 21,
2012, pursuant to stipulation, Defendant City was dismissed from this action
with prejudice.
On April 4,
2012, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Hernandez
and County alleging causes of action for:
(1) Dangerous Condition of
Public Property;
(2) Failure to Warn of
Dangerous Condition of Public Property;
(3) Negligence;
(4) Wrongful Death;
(5) Survival Action; and
(6) Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress.
On May 7,
2012, Defendant County filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Hernandez
alleging causes of action for: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3)
Comparative Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief.
On June 11,
2012, Defendant Hernandez filed a cross-complaint against Defendant County
alleging causes of action for: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Contribution; and
(3) Declaratory Relief.
On January
18, 2013, after its motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication was
granted, the court entered judgment in favor of Defendant County and against
Plaintiffs.
On February
5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.
On February
19, 2020, after hearing oral argument, the court denied without prejudice
Plaintiff Falcon’s ex parte application for an
order compelling payment by Defendant Hernandez according to terms of
settlement agreement, or in the alternative, to enter judgment against
Defendant Hernandez in the amount of $30,000.00 plus interest and sanctions.
(02/19/20 Minute Order.)
On August 8,
2022, the court entered an order approving a minor’s compromise on behalf of
Plaintiff Edgar Eduardo Magana, in which Plaintiff Edgar Eduardo Magana was to
receive a net balance of $3,749.00. (See Order, dated August 8, 2022.) The court’s
order provides that “[t]he claim or action to be compromised or settled is
asserted, or the judgment is entered against” Defendant Hernandez. (Id.,
¶ 4.)
On May 24,
2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’
ex parte application for an order compelling
payment by
Defendant Hernandez according to terms of settlement agreement, or in the
alternative, to enter judgment against Defendant Hernandez in the amount of
$30,000.00 plus interest and sanctions. (See Order, dated May 23,
2023.) The court informed Plaintiffs to “attach the Settlement Agreement” to
any subsequent motion for relief. (Id.)
On June 11,
2024, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion for an order compelling
payment by Defendant Hernandez according to terms of settlement agreement, or
in the alternative, to enter judgment against Defendant Hernandez in the amount
of $30,000.00 plus interest and sanctions (the “Motion”).
As an initial
matter, the court notes that the Motion raises the same arguments that were
raised, and rejected by the court on two prior occasions. (See Orders, dated
February 19, 2020 & May 24, 2023.)
The Motion is
unopposed. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and
served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005,
subd. (b).)
Legal
Standard
“Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6
provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering
judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Hines
v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “[I]f the parties to
pending litigation enter into a settlement either in writing signed by the
parties or orally before the court, the court, upon a motion, may enter
judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Ibid.) “The court
retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the statute even after a
dismissal, but only if the parties requested such a retention of jurisdiction
before the dismissal.” (Ibid.) “Such a request must be made either in
writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” (Ibid.)
“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Ibid.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” (Ibid.) “The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to.” (Ibid.) “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Ibid.) Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 “expressly provides for the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at p. 1183.) “It is widely recognized that the courts are not at liberty to revise an agreement under the guise of construing it.” (Series AGI Est Linn of Appian Group Investors DE, LLC v. Eves (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164.)
Under Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8), a court is empowered “[t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)
Discussion
In support of the Motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Sassan Mackay (“Mackay”), provides a declaration. Counsel declares the following: this action was settled on April 18, 2013, after Plaintiffs agreed to Defendant Hernandez’s tender of policy limit. (Mackay Decl., ¶ 2.) At no time ever was a settlement check forwarded nor was any release provided even though both parties agreed to the tender of Defendant Hernandez’s insurance policy limit with terms discussed. (Mackay Decl., ¶ 3.) On August 23, 2019, for the first time, Mr. Mackay states that he received the settlement and release document emailed to him by new counsel of record for Defendant Hernandez only after he had emailed counsel informing him of his intent to move ex parte on a motion compelling payment. (Mackay Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. A.) Mr. Mackay declares that the payment date has come and gone, with no payment by Defendant Hernandez, who is in material breach of the agreement. (Mackay Decl., ¶ 7.) Mr. Mackay states that on August 8, 2022, the court approved the minor’s compromise, and a copy of the signed order was served on Defendant Hernandez’s counsel and insurance company. (Mackay Decl., ¶¶13-17; Exhs. E, F, and G.)
The court finds that the purported settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant Hernandez is not signed. (Mackay Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. A [emphasis added].) The court cannot find that Defendant Hernandez agreed to a settlement agreement that he did not sign. Additionally, Plaintiffs also did not sign the purported settlement agreement. Upon further review of the settlement agreement, the court notes that there is no deadline by which payment must be made. (Mackay Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. A at ¶ 3.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ reliance on the court’s order concerning the minor’s compromise is misplaced as such an order does not set forth a deadline for payment. As it stands before the court, given the lack of a signed settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Hernandez, there is no agreement between the parties.
The court cannot find that Defendant Hernandez breached a
non-existent settlement term. Plaintiffs are attempting to impose an obligation
on Defendant Hernandez that is not explicitly stated in the settlement
agreement. The court reminds Plaintiffs that it is “not at liberty to revise an agreement under
the guise of construing it.” (Series AGI Est Linn of Appian Group Investors
DE, LLC v. Eves, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164.)
Conclusion