Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV11689, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Claudia Rodriguez brought this action against Defendant Nissan North America for (1) breach of implied warranty, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) fraudulent concealment, and (4) violation of the CLRA.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is continued to a date to be determined at the hearing. If the settlement check is not received by Plaintiff as of the date of the rescheduled hearing, judgment will be entered in Plaintiff’s favor, per the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement or CCP § 998 offer to compromise.

If the 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.

A settlement agreement in which the parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement must be signed by the parties (not just their counsel) and filed with the Court before the action is dismissed. (MesaRHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918.)

“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357.) Likewise, in “ruling on a motion to enforce settlement,” the Court “necessarily has the power to resolve factual disputes relating to the agreement.” (Ibid.) Of course, this also means that it is “for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement.” (Id. at 1360.)

Plaintiff moves to enforce Defendant’s Section 998 Offer to Compromise executed by the parties on July 30, 2024. (Barry Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not made the required payment.

Under the Settlement, “Nissan will pay Plaintiff the lump sum of $58,330.40,” and “[t]he settlement check(s) shall be sent by Nissan within 3 days after surrender of the subject vehicle.” (Id. ¶ 2.) The parties also agreed that Plaintiff could “petition the Court for an award of costs and reasonably incurred fees recoverable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1794(d).” (Id. ¶ 3.) The parties further “agreed that the Court shall maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this agreement, which shall be fully enforceable by any party pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664. 6.” (Id. ¶ 5.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts the motion is “premature and unnecessary because the subject vehicle was surrendered by Plaintiff on November 21, 2024 and…[f]ull performance of the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 is in progress and, to a great degree, already completed.” (Opp. 2: 5-10.) Defendant represents that it has already sent a check covering Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs. “Barring an unforeseen problem, Nissan’s counsel expects Plaintiff’s counsel to receive the [entire] settlement check prior to the December 6, 2024 hearing on this motion.” (Harlow Decl. ¶ 7.) Therefore, Defendant contends the motion should be “denied or, in the alternative, continued for 30 days to allow completion of the remaining terms of settlement, including payment of the settlement check.” (Opp. 2: 8-10.)

Plaintiff has not filed a reply disputing the points raised in opposition. Therefore, it is not clear that Defendant has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement or has any intention of doing so. The motion is silent on when Plaintiff surrendered the vehicle, which was a condition precedent to payment. The motion is simply premature because the settlement pieces remain in progress.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is continued to a date to be determined at the hearing. If the settlement check is not received by Plaintiff as of the date of the rescheduled hearing, judgment will be entered in Plaintiff’s favor.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.