Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV19553, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19553    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 3, 2025                   TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Alyssa Cienfuegos v. Shabani Institute, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV19553           

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Alyssa Cienfuegos

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants B. Daniel Shabani, Inc., d/b/a Shabani Institute

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for employment discrimination and wrongful termination that was filed on August 16, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated because Defendants did not reinstate her after taking leave for her pregnancy.

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement agreement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to enforce a settlement agreement.

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

            On November 19, 2024, counsel for Defendant appeared for a Status Conference Post-Resolve Law LA Virtual Mandatory Settlement Conference Program and reported that the parties had reached a settlement in this action. (November 19, 2024 Minute Order.) According to the materials presented by Plaintiff—the authenticity of which is not disputed by Defendant—the mediator for this dispute issued a proposed settlement on Wednesday, October 2, 2024 at 5:16 PM. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 2 p.1.) The terms of this proposal were that “[i]n exchange for a release of all claims and all defendants with prejudice, Defendants shall pay to Plaintiff the gross settlement sum of $28,000, spread evenly over 10 payments, with a personal guarantee by Daniel Shabani.” (Id.) All parties were directed to respond by email with their acceptance or rejection by no later than 5:30 PM on October 3, with failure to respond being construed as a rejection. (Id.) The proposal did not specify the timing of the payments. (Id.) On October 3, 2024, at 6:10 PM, the mediators reported that the parties had accepted the settlement proposal. (Id at p. 3.) The mediators left the details of the settlement to be resolved by the parties via a long-form writing. (Id.)

            Plaintiff seeks to enforce the settlement as presented in a long-form agreement—prepared by Plaintiff’s counsel after mediation—specifying that the settlement payments, as reflected in the mediation correspondence, were to be made monthly. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 4.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to make monthly payments as described in the long-form document. As Defendant argues in opposition, this unsigned document prepared in the course of mediation is not admissible under the plain language of Evidence Code section 1119 subdivision (b).) Moreover, an unsigned document of unknown provenance, without more, has no probative value as to whether Defendant assented to the terms in that document. Plaintiff’s unsupported assertions that Defendant drafted the long-form agreement are not evidence of that contention. The Court must therefore confine its analysis to the terms of the agreement reflected in the mediator’s correspondence itself.

            As to the agreement reached by the parties in October 2024, Defendant first argues that Plaintiff has not produced a writing signed by Defendant binding him to the terms proposed on October 2, 2024. The Court finds this argument to be of little force, as Defendant, who would necessarily have firsthand knowledge of whether Defendant accepted the terms, does not actually deny that the terms were accepted. That said, Defendant offers the more forceful argument that the terms of the agreement as stated on October 2, 2024, are not sufficiently defined to be enforceable because the mediators did not specify a schedule for the proposed settlement installments. Plaintiff fails to reckon with this contention beyond relying upon the long-form document which the Court has rejected. The Court is therefore forced to concur with Defendant that, on this record, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of a settlement agreement with sufficiently definite terms to allow the Court to evaluate Defendant’s compliance or the proper manner of enforcement.

CONCLUSION:

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

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 3, 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.