Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV36319, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36319    Hearing Date: September 20, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Shahrokh Javidzad and Laleh Javidzad’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. 

Background 

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Cahleb Cartier (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Shahrokh Javidzad, Laleh Javidzad (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, asserting one cause of action for negligence, arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about July 27, 2020, on or near Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.

Defendants filed their answers on October 28, 2021, and March 14, 2022.

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendants’ insurance carrier containing a detailed settlement proposal.  (Hillier Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)  Two days later, on April 26, a representative of the insurance carrier responded by letter and accepted the proposal.  (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)  That same day, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a draft release and dismissal.  (Id., ¶ 5 & Exh. C.)  The next day, Defendants took two discovery motions off calendar.  (Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. D.)  Plaintiff has refused to sign the release and dismissal, however, and has taken the position that the case is not settled.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-10.)

On August 15, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 6, and on September 12 Defendants filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

(a) 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.

(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.

Because of the summary nature of a proceeding to enforce a settlement agreement under section 664.6, and because settlement of a lawsuit implicates a substantial right of a litigant, strict compliance with the statutory requirements is required.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985; Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  Before the Legislature amended the statute effective as of 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.)  In any event, however, for a settlement agreement to be enforceable under section 664.6, all “parties” (as that term is defined in the statute) must sign, including the party seeking to enforce the agreement and the party against whom enforcement is sought.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 985.) 

If the settlement leaves material terms wanting, or confusing, the settlement cannot be enforced through the section 664.6 summary proceeding.  (Compare Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445 [finding parties never agreed to the means that were material to the settlement, including what role an independent manager was to play regarding management of a trust property, and whether the trust should be qualified as a QTIP, thereby indicating that there was no meeting of the minds as to the material terms] with Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355 [holding trial court’s decision to extend closing date for vendor’s agreement to repurchase house did not create a material term and was within court’s power because the closing date had passed by the time the motions came on for hearing and a new closing date was necessary to grant the relief sought by both parties].)  Nonetheless, when the “parties intend that an agreement be binding, the fact that a more formal agreement must be prepared and executed does not alter the validity of the agreement.” (Blix St. Records, Inc. v. Cassidy (2010) 191 CA4th 39, 48.) 

It is possible that the parties may have an enforceable settlement agreement that is not subject to the summary enforcement proceedings of section 664.6 (including, for example, an enforceable oral agreement to settle or an agreement that is signed by an authorized representative who has the power to bind the party but is not listed in subdivision (b) of the statute).  In those circumstances, a party seeking to enforce the agreement must proceed through other means, such as a separate civil action, an amendment to the answer to add a new affirmative defense, and/or a motion for summary judgment, rather than through the summary procedures of section 664.6.  (See generally Weddington Productions v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)

Discussion

Defendants move to enforce a settlement agreement with Plaintiff under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  Defendants contend that the exchange of letters between Plaintiff’s counsel and their insurer, taken together, establish an offer and an acceptance, and therefore an enforceable contract.  (See Hillier Decl., Exhs. A-B.)

A review of the exhibits does not, however, show compliance with the requirements of section 664.6.  Under subdivision (b) of the statute, there are three options regarding who may sign a settlement agreement: (1) the party; (2) the attorney for a party; or (3) if the insurance carrier is a party, an authorized representative of the insurer.

Here, the offer (Exhibit A) is signed by Plaintiff’s attorney.  That meets the requirements of section 664.6, subdivision (b)(2).

The acceptance (Exhibit B), however, is signed by Austing Gorban, a member of the claims department of the insurance carrier.  It is not signed by either Defendant (much less both of them), and so subdivision (b)(1) of the statute is not satisfied.  It is not signed by Defendants’ attorney, and so subdivision (b)(2) is not satisfied.  And the insurance company is not a party, and so subdivision (b)(3) does not apply.

Absent strict compliance with the requirements of the statute, the Court cannot grant enforcement of the settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 985.)

The settlement agreement may or may not be enforceable through other means, but Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement under the summary procedure of section 664.6 is denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.