Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV01427, Date: 2023-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01427    Hearing Date: December 27, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 12-27-23 a/f 3-18-24 (via 10-24-23 ex parte order)

Case # 23CHCV01427

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Sandy and Felipe Plasencia

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Emma Osorio

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On May 16, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint for Motor Vehicle arising from a car accident on April 12, 2023 in Santa Clarita. On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Motor Vehicle and Declaratory Relief. Defendants answered on August 25, 2023.

RULING: Denied.

Defendants moves for entry of judgment for the insurance policy limit—indicated as $15,000. Defendants indicate service of a settlement agreement and release on June 30, 2023, but remain unable to confirm execution of the settlement. Plaintiff in opposition denies the existence of any mutual consent, thereby establishing an enforceable agreement. Defendant in reply argues that Plaintiff has never disputed the material terms of the settlement, namely the policy limits settlement amount, and the points raised in opposition are either misstatements of fact or invalid law.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides: “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.)

“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.)

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.)

The motion lacks any proof of execution of the settlement agreement by Plaintiff. The opposition strongly denies any acceptance of the settlement agreement. The first amended complaint for declaratory relief, filed after service of the proposed release and settlement agreement also denies the existence of any settlement agreement. The motion therefore lacks sufficient evidence of an enforceable settlement agreement with Plaintiff. The court declines to make a ruling for enforcement of an unexecuted agreement based on a represented acceptance of the initial settlement offer, while disregarding the subsequent rejection of the purported acceptance. [Declaration of Ricardo DiCorrado, Ex. A-D, G-I; Declaration of Dean Ogrin, Ex. 8] The motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.