Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV27973, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27973    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Lydia Cincore-Templeton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 24, 2020, against Defendants Beverly Smith, Cheryl Hickmon, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on October 13, 2021. The TAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) violation of Unfair Competition Law, (4) declaratory relief, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) negligence, and (7) intentional interference with prospective economic, reputational, and political relations. 

Defendants indicate that on September 7, 2022, Defendants and Plaintiff (jointly referred to as the “Parties”) attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) with Judge Dennis Landin. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 2.) At the MSC, the Parties settled this matter. (Ibid.)

Defendants now move for entry of an order enforcing the settlement reached by the Parties at the MSC.[1] Plaintiff filed a partial opposition to the motion. 

Discussion

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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, subd. (a).)

“Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” ((Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810 [internal citations omitted, emphasis in original].)

As set forth above, Defendants indicate that the parties settled this matter at a September 7, 2022 MSC. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 2.) To memorialize this settlement prior to the execution of a formal settlement agreement, Defendants’ counsel circulated a Memorandum of Understanding

(“MOU”) to Plaintiff’s counsel and Judge Landin. (Ibid.) Following the settlement, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel to finalize a “joint statement” as set forth in the MOU. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 3.) More specifically, Defendants indicate that “[a]s part of the settlement, the Parties…agreed to finalize a joint statement that would be issued to the Presidents of the Delta Sigma Theta Farwest Region.” (Mot. at p. 2:5-8.) On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel proposed a revised joint statement, and on October 2, 2022, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel with a revised joint statement proposal. (Roquemore Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Defendants indicate that on “October 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel responded with another revised joint statement proposal, reinserting some of the language that was problematic to Defendants and contradicted the MOU.” (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel convened with Judge Landin on November 16, 2022. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendants indicate that during his session, their counsel “conveyed to Judge Landin and [Plaintiff’s counsel] that the language proposed by Plaintiff was unreasonably weighted against Defendants, imputed fault to Defendants, and was otherwise inappropriate because Defendants cannot agree to ‘rescind’ or ‘vacate’ charges against Plaintiff, Defendants have not agreed the charges were ‘erroneous,’ and Plaintiff’s membership rights are not being reinstated ‘as of’ November 2018.” (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 7.) The Parties met and conferred further, but were unable to resolve their dispute. (Roquemore Decl., ¶ 10.)

            Defendants assert that the Court should order Plaintiff’s acceptance of Defendants’ proposed joint statement. Defendants note that “the Parties agreed in the MOU to issue a “joint statement mutually setting forth the resolution of this matter,” and that the Parties further agreed the statement “shall identify Plaintiff by name,” and “shall be issued to the Presidents of the Delta Sigma Theta Farwest Region.” (Mot. at p. 8:10-13, citing Roquemore Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

            Defendants contend that the latest joint statement proposed by Plaintiff “(1) exceeds the agreement’s stated purpose of simply setting forth the resolution of this matter; (2) is weighted against Defendants and is thereby non-mutual in violation of the Parties’ agreement; (3) directly states and/or implies that Defendants are at fault, in a manner that is contrary to the purpose of any negotiated settlement; and (4) includes statements that are untrue and/or inappropriate for a neutral settlement statement (e.g., Plaintiff’s charges are ‘rescinded,’ and Plaintiff’s membership rights are restored ‘retroactive to November 14, 2018’).” (Mot. at p. 9:1-7.)

In the opposition, Plaintiff states that she does not dispute that a settlement agreement has been reached, but that the parties are at an impasse regarding the language of the subject joint statement.

                                                               Defendants request that the Court order the Parties to adopt a joint statement set forth at page 9:11-21 of Defendants’ motion. In her opposition, Plaintiff requests that the Court “adopt her version of the Joint Statement, or at least force Delta to give plaintiff service credit for the time that she has been wrongfully suspended, November 13, 2018 to the present.” (Opp’n at p. 6:6-8.) However, as noted above, “nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 810 (emphasis in original).) Although Defendants note that the Parties agreed in the MOU to issue a “joint statement mutually setting forth the resolution of this matter” (Roquemore Decl.    ¶ 2, Ex. A), Defendants acknowledge that the parties did not agree in the MOU to all of the exact terms of such joint statement. Thus, the Court does not find that it has the authority to order that the Parties accept either Defendants’ or Plaintiff’s proposed joint statements.[2]

            However, the Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff’s proposed terms that “all charges are rescinded/dropped/cancelled, and the membership rights of Soror Cincore-Templeton are fully reinstated retroactive to November 14, 2018,” were not part of the “resolution of this matter,” it would not be appropriate to include such terms in the joint statement. Defendants note in the reply that these terms were not included in the parties’ MOU.

            Lastly, Defendants note that Plaintiff’s opposition includes settlement terms that the parties designated confidential. Defendants request in the reply that such information be filed under seal. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 et seq.¿ to seal portions of Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling. 

DATED:  April 7, 2023                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court