Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV33473, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33473    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 29

De Macias v. Ryder Systems Inc.
22STCV33473
Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 12, 2022, Carolina Arellano De Macias, individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Eduardo Macias; Mario Macias Macias, individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Eduardo Macias (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against FB Holding dba Fresh Grill; Brown Bag Sandwich Company, LLC; Carius Hernandez (later corrected to Carlos A. Hernandez, Sr.); Karla Roman; Jose Miguel Roman-Ramirez; and Ryder Systems, Inc. for wrongful death and negligence arising out of an automobile accident on October 10, 2021.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss Ryder Systems, Inc.

On January 25, 2023, FB Holding Company, LLC; Brown Bag Sandwich Company, LLC; Fresh Grill, LLC; and Carlos A. Hernandez, Sr. (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.  On the same day, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Jose Miguel Roman, Karla Roman, and Roes 1 through 20.

On December 18, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to enforce a settlement agreement with Plaintiff.

No opposition has been filed.

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 for parties to 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 [“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.”].)

In ruling on a motion brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the court acts as a trier of fact.  The court may consider any admissible evidence, including documents, declarations, and oral testimony.  (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533; 3 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶¶ 12:977-12:978.6.)

Discussion

Defendants bring this motion to seek a court order to enforce the terms of a written settlement.

Defendants present evidence that the parties entered into a contract to settle the litigation.  (Izurieta Decl., ¶ 4.)  Defendant attach a written document entitled “Stipulation for Settlement” that outlines the terms for settlement. (Id., Exh. A. [attached to notice of motion and motion].)  The stipulation is signed by each of the Plaintiffs, by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and counsel for Defendants.  (Ibid.)

The settlement terms include the following: (1) Defendants to pay $1.5 million to Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs to release all claims; (3) Plaintiffs to waive Civil Code section 1542; (4) Plaintiffs to be responsible for all liens; (5) the parties agree to confidentiality; (6) each side to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees; and (6) Plaintiffs to dismiss the entire action with prejudice after receipt of the settlement funds.  (Ibid.) 

The stipulation contemplates that the parties will execute a more comprehensive and full release of claims.  (Izurieta Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. A.)  Defense counsel drafted a release and sent it to Plaintiffs’ counsel for signature, but Plaintiffs have not signed.  (Id., ¶¶ 6-8 & Exh. B.) 

The Court has reviewed the evidence in the record and finds that all of the procedural and substantive requirements for a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 are satisfied.  The motion is granted.  The Court finds, concludes, and orders that the Stipulation for Settlement signed by the parties on September 17, 2024 (and attached as Exhibit A to the notice of motion and motion) is a binding and enforceable settlement agreement. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

The Court finds, concludes, and orders that the Stipulation for Settlement signed by the parties on September 17, 2024 (and attached as Exhibit A to the notice of motion and motion) is a binding and enforceable settlement agreement.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.