Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV18219, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18219    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 24, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Michael “Mike” Behen and against Defendant City of Palmdale.  The judgment consists of $ $450,000.00 “made payable jointly to BEHEN and BEHEN’s legal counsel, for non-wage based damages and attorneys’ fees, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of judgment until paid”; $150,161.00 “made payable to BEHEN with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of judgment until paid”; and $95,000.00 “made payable to BEHEN as a severance payment of salary and benefits, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of judgment until paid.”

Defendant paid the $400,000.00 on July 26, 2023.  (Motion, Ex. F.)  Defendant did not pay the other amounts owed.

On October 16, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for determination of partial satisfaction of judgment.

The judgment was entered pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement.  Under the settlement agreement, City was to pay Plaintiff $150,161.00 for the present-day value of the loss in pension income he will incur by retiring January 2023 instead of January 2024, and $495,000.00 as a severance payment of salary and benefits.  (Motion, Ex. A, ¶¶ 3(B)-3(C).)  Plaintiff “agree[d] to voluntarily and irrevocably separate his employment . . . no later than January 13, 2023.”  (Motion, Ex. A, ¶¶ 3(D).)  If Plaintiff did not “take affirmative steps to resign or retire from his employment as of the Separation Date, his voluntary resignation shall be deemed effective and the City will process a voluntary separation on his behalf.”  (Motion, Ex. A, ¶¶ 3(D).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s continued employment from January 13, 2023, through July 3, 2023, under which Behen’s pension continued to accrue, constitutes a partial satisfaction of the $150,161.00.  According to Defendant’s calculations, the amount remaining for loss in pension income is $79,585.00 (53-percent of the $150,161.00).  Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s continued employment through July 3, 2023, whereby City paid Plaintiff the sum of $103,718.98 in salary with full benefits, constitutes full satisfaction of the $95,000.00.

Judgment has already been entered pursuant to the settlement agreement.  The judgment is not conditional: it awards Plaintiff $450,000.00 for non-wage-based damages and attorneys’ fees; $150,161.00 without any description; and $95,000.00 “as a severance payment of salary and benefits.”

Defendant did object to Plaintiff’s proposed judgment and sought a pro-rata reduction for the months Plaintiff continued to work until date of entry of judgment.  (See Motion, Ex. C.)  But no such offset or reduction is contained in the parties’ settlement agreement.  What Defendant is actually seeking is a reformation of the settlement agreement and the judgment.

Defendant argues that equity demands that it be given credit for the payments Plaintiff received when he was still employed so he does not receive double recovery.  (Motion at p. 6.)  When objecting to the proposed judgment, Defendant also argued that Plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from his breach of the settlement agreement (by not resigning by January 13, 2023).

The Court will not decide the merits of any alleged breach of contract by Plaintiff, especially when the settlement agreement expressly contemplated Plaintiff’s failure to resign by that date.  (Motion, Ex. A, ¶ 3(D).)  If that occurred, Defendant would process his voluntary resignation, which it did not due until July 3, 2023.  (Motion, Ex. A, ¶ 3(D).)  Thus, the parties had contemplated the possibility of Plaintiff not resigning by the specified date, and they did not provide for reductions of the settlement payments if that occurred.

Accordingly, the motion for determination of partial satisfaction of judgment is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 16th day of November 2023