Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV34366, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34366    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     November 22, 2023               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Suzani Smith v. Ace Auto Group, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 21STVC34366           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Suzani Smith

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of November 17, 2023

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/17/21: Complaint filed.

·         11/08/21: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for fraud, breach of contract, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a used 2009 Toyota Corolla from Defendant, and that Defendant concealed that the vehicle had sustained prior frame and structural damage from an accident.

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties.

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.)

Terms of Settlement

            Plaintiff contends that the parties executed a written settlement agreement on August 1, 2023 outside the presence of the Court. Rather than providing a copy of the settlement agreement signed by both parties, however, Plaintiff has instead produced two contradictory settlement agreements. (See Declaration of Robert L. Starr ISO Mot. Exh. 1.) The first, which seems to bear Plaintiff’s signature and is dated July 21, 2023, appears to require Plaintiff to return the vehicle to Defendant and pay Defendant $4,600 to repurchase the vehicle in exchange for a release of claims. (Starr Decl. Exh. 1. pp. 1-2.) The second, bearing the signature of an agent for Defendant and dated August 1, 2023, requires Defendant to deliver clear title for the Vehicle to Plaintiff with an initial payment of $4,000, with monthly payments of $1,000 to follow for the next six months, in exchange for a release of claims. (Id. pp. 5-6.) Neither agreement bears the signature of the other party, and given the contradictory terms, it is not apparent from this record that there was any agreement between the parties for settlement of any claims. Plaintiff has thus failed to demonstrate the existence of any settlement agreement which may be enforced.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  November 21, 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.