Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 18STCV00946, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV00946    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 16, 2018, plaintiff Michael Gaeler (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Hakop Jack Akylan and Arka Akylan (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from an automobile accident that occurred on October 28, 2016.  On October 15, 2021, the parties appeared at a virtual voluntary settlement conference before the honorable Michele E. Flurer.  The parties reached a settlement agreement.  The minute order states: “Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff $85,000 payable within [sic] reasonable time after execution of the settlement documents.  Defendant [sic] to draft settlement and release agreements.  Plaintiff to be responsible for all liens.  Each party to waive all fees and costs.”  (Motion, Ex. A.) 

On July 8, 2022, Defendants filed this motion to enforce the settlement agreement after Plaintiff failed to execute the settlement documents prepared by Defendant, including a release and a dismissal.  (Motion, Exs. B-C.) 

“If 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.) 

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.  (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)  The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to execute the Release and Dismissal forthwith or, in the alternative: (1) set an OSC for Plaintiff to personally appear before the Court and explain why the Release and Dismissal have not yet been executed, or (2) order the matter dismissed with prejudice.  Defendants contend it is unfair for them to continue appearing at OSCs re: Dismissal and incur additional expenses associated with the appearances due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.  There is currently an OSC re: Dismissal scheduled for September 8, 2022.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part.  The Court sets an OSC for August 22, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. and orders Plaintiff to personally appear, either in-person or virtually, and explain his failure to comply with the settlement agreement as agreed before Judge Flurer.   

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.