Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV19714, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19714    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     August 4, 2022                       TRIAL DATE: March 18, 2024

CASE:                         Brown v. City of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                 20STCV19714           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant City of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Raymond Brown

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for whistleblower retaliation filed on May 22, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against for making internal complaints regarding racially discriminatory remarks made by one of his superiors as an officer of the Los Angeles Police Department. 

Defendant, the City of Los Angeles, moves to enforce a settlement agreement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            The Defendant, the City of Los Angeles, moves to enforce a settlement agreement against Plaintiff.

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).) 

            Defendant contends that an email exchange in which Plaintiff’s counsel states that he is authorized to settle the matter for $50,000, to which Defendant’s counsel agreed, is sufficient to create an enforceable settlement. (Defendant’s Exh. 1.) No memorandum of understanding nor settlement was ever signed by either party or their attorneys, nor was any settlement announced on the record before the Court.  Further, Defendant cites no law stating that an email exchange between attorneys in negotiation can be construed as a signed written settlement of an entire action. Even if it were possible to so bind the parties, Defendant’s own evidence shows that the parties were still negotiating the terms of the agreement. (Defendant’s Exh. 2.) The City of Los Angeles will have to do better than to file a two-page motion consisting of conclusory assertions if it wishes to secure any form of relief from this Court.

            Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED.

            Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2022                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.