Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV02293, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02293    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 7, 2023  TRIAL DATE: PHASE 1: May 8, 2023

CASE:                         Lauren Moriah Castro v. Ricardo Castro, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV02293           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.6

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Lauren Moriah Castro and Richard Castro, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Nicole Ann Nunez-Castro

CASE HISTORY:

·         03/04/20: Complaint filed

·         09/23/20: First Amended Complaint filed

·         03/04/22: Second Amended Complaint filed

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action in real property. Plaintiff and Defendant Richard Castro are co-owners of a piece of real property as tenants in common. Plaintiff seeks a sale of the property and an accounting of all sums for upkeep, maintenance, mortgage, tax, and insurance payments on the property.

Plaintiffs move to enforce an oral settlement agreement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiffs move to enforce an oral settlement agreement reached during a Mandatory Settlement Conference on January 4, 2023.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

If the 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(a), bold emphasis and underlining added.) The statute now also permits the writing to be signed by an “attorney who represents the party.” (Code Civ. Proc.  § 664.6(b)(2).) Further, it is well-settled that an agreement to settle a lawsuit reached at a judicially supervised settlement conference is enforceable. (See, e.g, Gopal v. Yoshikawa (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 128, 132; Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

            When ruling on the enforcement of a settlement agreement, the Court “should consider whether (1) the material terms of the settlement were explicitly defined, (2) the supervising judicial officer questioned the parties regarding their understanding of those terms, and (3) the parties expressly acknowledged their understanding of and agreement to be bound by those terms.” (In re. Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 900.)

            The following facts are undisputed: The parties attended a mandatory settlement conference over Zoom on January 4, 2023, mediated by Judge James R. Dunn. (Declaration of Susan Murphy ISO Mot. ¶ 7.) Judge Dunn determined that Defendant Castro made property tax payments in the amount of $14,313, resolving an outstanding dispute over the amount that had been paid by Defendant Castro. (Id.)

Plaintiffs then contend that the parties reached a settlement agreement whose principal terms were:

(1) the Parties agreed to sell S. Townsend; (2) the proceeds of the sale would be divided evenly into one-third shares except $4,771.00 would be taken from each of Richard’s and Lauren’s shares (a total of $9,542) and added to Nicole’s one-third distribution; (3) real estate agent Jesse Gonzalez would be hired as the listing agent and receive a commission of 5% of the gross sales price; (4) Nicole would pay rent of $1,350 per month until she vacated the premise and (5) each party would bear their own court costs and attorney’s fees.

(Murphy Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendant and Plaintiff Lauren then orally stipulated to the terms once they were settled. The Declaration does not state that the parties were questioned by Judge Dunn concerning their understanding of the terms, nor does it expressly state that the parties acknowledged their understanding and agreement to be bound by these terms.

            In opposition, Defendant contends that Nicole Castro never orally stipulated to the terms of the agreement. (Declaration of Steven L. Boortz ISO Opp. ¶ 3.) Attorney Boortz’s declaration states under penalty of perjury that the term that “real estate agent Jesse Gonzalez would be hired as the listing agent and receive a commission of 5% of the gross sales price” was suggested by Attorney Murphy to Attorney Boortz after his client had exited the MSC. (Id.) Counsel for Defendant told Attorney Murphy that the choice of listing agent “was fine,” but Defendant had no knowledge of the term and objected to it when she was told. (Id. ¶ 4.) The declaration also states under penalty of perjury that Judge Dunn did not question the parties regarding their understanding of the terms of any alleged agreement, and that the parties did not expressly acknowledge their understanding of and agreement to be bound by the terms listed in the motion. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant therefore argues that Plaintiff has not satisfied the Assemi factors authorizing enforcement of any oral stipulation.

            In reply, Plaintiffs contend that the Court has discretion not to consider all the factors identified in Assemi because our Supreme Court said that the trial court “should” consider the listed factors, rather than “must.” (Assemi, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 900.) The Court is aware of no other instance where, when the highest court of this state identifies the factors that should be considered in ruling on a motion, a lower court has discretion not to follow that holding, and, even if such discretion existed, the Court sees no reason to exercise it here.

            Without a record from the Settlement Conference or a minute order formally stating the outcome, the Court must rely on the sworn declarations from the parties. Plaintiffs’ declaration sets out the material terms to which the parties purportedly agreed but does not state that the parties’ understanding was explicitly questioned or confirmed at the settlement conference. Plaintiffs only state that the parties “orally stipulated” to the terms of the settlement. Neither party provides sworn testimony from the parties themselves addressing this question. Defendant’s counsel contends that the terms as presented were not stipulated to by Defendant herself, but by her counsel. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 only permits enforcement of a settlement when the parties themselves, and not their attorneys, stipulate for settlement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The Court cannot conclude, based on the sworn testimony refuting Defendant’s oral agreement to the material terms of the settlement at the settlement conference, that there is an enforceable settlement between the parties.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 7, 2023                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.