Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV34020, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34020    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 29, 2025             TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Trio Renewable Gas, Inc. v. Steaman Group LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV34020           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Trio Renewable Gas, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 05/23/25

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/14/21: Complaint filed.

·         07/07/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         04/03/23: Second Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff compensation for work done as agreed in a contract between the parties.

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement reached by the parties following mediation.  

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement reached by the parties following mediation. 

//

Legal Standard

            Enforcement of settlement agreements is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. This statute provides, in relevant part:

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).) The Court is empowered under this section to resolve reasonable disputes over the terms of a settlement. (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795.) The Court does not insert provisions into the parties’ agreement but applies the rules of contractual interpretation to interpretation of the settlement. (Id. at 792.) When extrinsic evidence is necessary, the Court may decide the motion on declarations alone. (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Analysis

            In October of 2024, the parties to this action attended a mediation by Robert Dickson of Dickson & Dickson, which led to a proposed settlement of the case. (Declaration of Michael Wallin ISO Mot. ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) The proposal stated, in its entirety:

Defendant/Cross Complainant Steaman to Pay Plaintiff/Cross Defendant Trio the sum of $20,000. Steaman to commit to not use any of Trio’s Intellectual Property (“IP”) in any fashion and at any time. The specific language of the agreement to not use the IP of Trio shall be negotiated between counsel. Each party is to dismiss its respective action against the other and execute releases of the other side in a written settlement agreement. Each party is to bear its own attorney fees and costs. Proposal to expire by close of business 10/30/24.

(Id. Exh. 1.)  Counsel for Defendant accepted the proposal on Friday, October 25, 2024, via email. (Id. Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel prepared a proposed formal settlement agreement and sent it to Defendant’s counsel on December 15, 2024, with a subsequent revision on February 7, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5; Exh. 3.) On February 8, Defendant’s counsel responded that he was traveling and would address the settlement the following week upon his return. (Id. ¶ 6; Exh. 4.) Plaintiff never received any further communication from Defendant, and counsel for Defendant has not appeared at subsequent hearings. (Wallin Decl. ¶¶ 7-10; see March 5, 2025 Minute Order.)

            Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a judgment (1) deeming the case settled on the terms in the unsigned February 7, 2025 proposal; (2) awarding $20,000 to Plaintiff and against Defendant; (3) prohibiting Defendant from the use of any intellectual property in which Plaintiff holds an interest; (4) dismissing the Complaint and Cross-Complaint with prejudice; and (5) retaining jurisdiction of this matter. Plaintiff’s request goes beyond the Court’s authority to enforce a settlement in that it seeks to add terms not present in the only agreement to which the parties stipulated in writing—i.e., the Mediator’s Proposal. That agreement does not reference retention of jurisdiction, and although the Proposal references the preparation of a long-form settlement, it also requires that the Parties reach an agreement on the language and terms of that settlement. Specifically, the Proposal dictates that “[t]he specific language of the agreement to not use the IP of Trio shall be negotiated between counsel.” This record presents no evidence of any agreement on that terms of that proposed agreement nor any other language for the settlement agreement, so the Court cannot force Defendant’s assent on these points.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 29, 2025                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.