Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV15820, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15820    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 5-19-25

Case # 20STCV15820

Trial Date: N/A

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Marc Gedeon, A Professional Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY:  Unopposed, Defendants, Gladys Anne Happer, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Enforce Settlement

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Marc Gedeon, A Professional Corporation, alleges Defendants owe $36,958.22 in unpaid legal fees. On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Breach of Written Contract 2. Fraud and Deceit 3. Quantum Meruit, and 4. Common Counts. On August 6, 2020, the clerk entered defaults against Orion West Group, LLC, Gladys Happer, and silicon Beach Medical Center, Inc. On November 16, 2020, the court entered the parties’ stipulation to set aside the defaults. Defendants Gladys Anne Happer, an individual, Playa Advance Urgent Care, INC., a California Corporation, Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Silicon Beach Medical Center, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Orion West Group LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, answered the complaint on December 3, 2020.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintif Marc Gedeon, A Professional Corporation moves for enforcement of the settlement agreement with Defendants Guven Uzun, Gladys Anne Happer, Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc., Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC, Silicon Beach Medical Center, Inc., and Orion West Group LLC. Plaintiff seeks payment of $17,000 and $1,890 in attorney fees. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.) Accordingly, “parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must 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.)

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) When ruling on a section 664.6 motion, the trial court acts as a trier of fact to determine whether a settlement has occurred, which is also an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement. (Id.) The court may not “create the material terms of a settlement,” and must instead decide on what terms the parties agreed upon. (Id.; Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460; Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360; Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565-566.) “In acting upon a section 664.6 motion, the trial court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. In making this determination, trial judges, in the sound exercise of their discretion, may receive oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone.” (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.)

On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. In the July 10, 2024, minute order regarding the notice of settlement, the court set an OSC re: Status of Settlement for December 5, 2024, whereby the court ordered the parties present the terms of the settlement. On December 5, 2024, the court continued the hearing to March 7, 2025, and again ordered the parties present the terms of the settlement and a dismissal of the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On March 7, 2025, the court continued the hearing to May 19, 2025, and sanctioned defense counsel $100 due to the non-appearance for the court ordered hearing a second time.

The subject settlement with articulation of and agreement to all applicable terms remains unsubmitted to the court in the form of a written order. The parties alternatively never appeared for a court hearing for entry into the settlement before the court, thereby allowing the court to enter a minute order. The case therefore remains active and never dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court cannot enforce a purported settlement agreement without a compliant dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 establishing statutory compliance. [See Declaration of Halil Hasic] The motion is DENIED, without prejudice.

Moving Party to provide notice.