Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV11145, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV11145, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11145 Hearing Date: August 17, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by Defendant Teron Liggins is DENIED.

Background

This case and the two related cases arise out of a series of events involving multiple parties on the 105 Freeway on March 22, 2020.

On March 22, 2021, in this case (case number 21STCV11145), Plaintiffs David and Patty Gutierrez filed a complaint against (among others) Defendant State of California, California Department of Transportation, Department of California Highway Patrol, Teron Liggins, and Trino Naranjo alleging causes of action for dangerous condition of public property, negligence (two counts), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. This is referred to as the “Gutierrez Action.”

On February 14, 2022, in case number 22STLC00914, Plaintiff Aspire General Insurance Company filed a complaint for subrogation against Defendant Teron Liggins. This is the “Aspire Action.”

On February 28, 2022, in case number 22STCV07237, Plaintiffs Jorge and Guadalupe Gomez filed a complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence against Defendants Teron Liggins and Trino Naranjo. This is the “Gomez Action.”

By order dated August 25, 2022, the Court related these three actions. All are assigned to the Spring Street Courthouse, Department 29.

By order in the Gomez Action dated July 25, 2023, the Court denied, for procedural reasons, a motion to consolidate the Gutierrez Action and the Gomez Action.

On August 3, 2023, Defendant Teron Liggins (“Defendant”) filed a motion in the Gutierrez Action (only) seeking an order to enforce an alleged settlement agreement and dismiss the complaint as to Defendant. (Although the motion was not filed with the Court until August 3, it was apparently served on June 20, 2023.) In the motion, Defendant argued (in summary) that the parties, through an exchange of emails by their authorized representatives in or about November 2021, entered into a binding contract to settle and resolve this matter.

On August 3, Plaintiffs David and Patty Gutierez (“Plaintiffs”) filed an opposition to the motion.

On August 10, Defendant filed a reply.

Discussion

The Court begins by addressing two procedural defects in Defendant’s motion.

First, Defendant seeks an order that would affect the rights not only of the Plaintiffs but also of Jorge and Guadalupe Gomez, the plaintiffs in the Gomez Action. That is clear both from the moving papers (Mot. at 2) and the reply papers (Reply at 3).

This is procedurally improper. The Gutierrez Action and the Gomez Action are related but not consolidated. They continue to exist as two separate actions. If Defendant seeks any relief or order affecting the rights of the plaintiffs in the Gomez Action, Defendant must file a motion in the Gomez Action.

Accordingly, the Court will not address Defendant’s request as it relates to the plaintiffs in the Gomez Action. All that the Court can consider, at this time, is Defendant’s request as it relates to Plaintiffs (David and Patty Gutierrez), the parties in the action in which the motion was filed.

Second, and more significantly, Defendant brings his motion under the authority of CSAA Ins. Exch. v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 272 (“Hodroj”). (Mot. at 2.) The Hodroj case arose in an entirely different procedural context, however, and does not provide any authority for the motion filed by Defendant that is currently before the Court.

Defendant seeks to enforce an alleged contract to settle the claims in this case. A party seeking to enforce an alleged settlement agreement has, in effect, two options. The first option is to rely on the traditional or common law remedy: file a complaint for breach of contract, or amend an existing pleading to allege the settlement agreement as a basis for a new cause of action or affirmative defense, and then either file a motion for summary judgment or proceed to trial. The second option is to file a motion for summary enforcement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, where the conditions for relief under that statute are met. (See generally 3 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶¶ 12:951-952.)

The Hodroj case, upon which Defendant relies, involved the first option. In that case, an insurance company sought to enforce an alleged settlement agreement. The insurer filed its own independent lawsuit for breach of contract and then moved for summary judgment. (72 Cal.App.5th at p. 275.) The insurance company prevailed on its motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that there was no disputed issue as to the offer and acceptance of the contract to settle the dispute. (Id. at 277-78.)

Here, in contrast, Defendant has not filed its own action for breach of contract or amended his answer to allege, as an affirmative defense, that the Plaintiffs released their claims by or through the settlement agreement. Nor has Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (with all of the procedural requirements and safeguards associated with such a motion) based on the alleged settlement agreement.

Instead, Defendant has filed an ordinary motion on regular notice seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement. Such relief on an ordinary motion is available, if at all, only under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and only when all of the conditions for enforcement under that statute are satisfied. But Defendant does not cite or otherwise invoke section 664.6 or make any attempt to show that the conditions of the statute are satisfied.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for procedural reasons. Defendant cannot rely on Hodroj as authority for his motion, and he has not brought the motion under section 664.6.

The denial is without prejudice. The Court makes no finding or ruling as to whether the communications that occurred in or about November 2021 are or are not sufficient to establish an offer, an acceptance, and a binding contract. The Court also makes no finding or ruling as to whether the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 are or are not satisfied.

Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.