Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 22STCV06156, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV06156, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06156 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is DENIED. The request for sanctions is denied.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“(a) [i]f 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.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.
(2) An attorney who represents the party.
(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.”

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Before an amendment was effective on January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (See Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The settlement had to include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that Defendants entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and has refused to honor the terms of the agreement.

By way of background, on August 18, 2022, Plaintiff submitted an Offer to Compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998 for the sum of $14,999.99. (D’Oyen Decl., Exh. A.) On October 4, 2022, Defendant submitted an Offer to Compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998 for the sum of $8,000. (Id., Exh. B.) On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff countered and indicated that they would be willing to accept $10,000. (Id., Exh. C.). On October 13, 2022, Defendant rejected the settlement demand and indicated that the Offer to Compromise for $8.000 was still available for acceptance. (Id., Exh. D.)

Almost a month later, on November 10, 2022, Defendant made another counter-offer for the sum of $9,000 (Id., E.) On November 11, 2022, Plaintiff indicated that she was willing to accept $10,000 for the resolution of this matter, prior to her deposition moving forward. (Id., F.) On November 11, 2022, Defendant rejected the offer and indicated that it intended to move forward with the deposition of Plaintiff and rejected the settlement demand of $10,000. (Id., Exh. G.)

On December 12, 2022, a month after rejecting Plaintiff’s settlement demand, absent any further settlement discussions, Defendant’s counsel sent a signed written offer and general release to Plaintiff. Both the written offer and the general release were for the sum of $15,000. (Id., Exh. I.) On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff acknowledged acceptance of the $15,000 offer via writing. (Id., Exh. J.) The following day, on December 13, 2022, Plaintiff forwarded the fully executed general release and dismissal to Defendant as requested. (Id., Exh. K.) Soon thereafter, Defendant inexplicably sent a settlement check for only $10,000. (Id., Exh L.)

Plaintiff argues she executed the general release that was prepared, authored and forwarded by Defendant’s counsel on December 12, 2022.

The Court finds the motion must be denied. Defendant’s signature is not on the release. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 requires both parties’ signature, and here, only Plaintiff’s signature appears on the agreement. While Defendant prepared, authored and forwarded the general release, without Defendant’s signature, there is no agreement signed by the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is without any authority providing for sanctions and is therefore denied.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is DENIED. The request for sanctions is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.