Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV27609, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27609    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. INTRODUCTION

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff Nakia Rousie (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Austin W. Jordan.

On January 30, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) statutory liability, (4) negligence (Government Code sections 815.2, 815.6, 820; California Vehicle Code section 17001], (5) negligence – common carrier, (6) violation of Government Code section 845.6, (7) violation of Government Code section 845.6, and (8) negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training.

On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire case.

On June 23, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to enforce settlement and noted that the applicant may file a noticed motion.

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice to enforce settlement.  Defendants County of Los Angeles (erroneously and separately named and served as Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) and Austin Jordan (collectively “Defendants”) filed an opposition.  Plaintiff filed a reply re: non-opposition on July 19, 2022.

1. LEGAL STANDARDS

“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.)

1. DISCUSSION

1. Non-Receipt of Opposition

Plaintiff filed a reply indicating no opposition had been served to the motion.  A review of the proof of service attached to Defendants’ opposition shows that the opposition was served on Plaintiff’s counsel by electronic transmission on July 12, 2022.  It is unclear why Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the opposition.

Generally, the Court would continue the hearing, order Defendants to re-serve a copy of their opposition, and allow Plaintiff to file a reply addressing the arguments made in the opposition.  However, as the motion must be denied for the reasons set forth below, the Court declines to continue the motion to allow Plaintiff to file a reply on the merits.

1. Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff seeks a court order enforcing the parties’ settlement.  Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring Defendants to start the review process in accordance to the settlement agreement within 10 days of receiving the court’s order.

Plaintiff relies on CCP section 664.6 to support Plaintiff’s argument that the court has the authority to enforce the parties’ settlement.  CCP section 664.6 only allows for enforcement through entry of judgment pursuant to the settlement terms.  CCP section 664.6 does not provide authority for compelling Defendants to start the review process for approving the parties’ settlement.  Plaintiff has provided no other authority that permits the Court to make such an order.

Even if the Court could make such an order under CCP section 664.6, CCP section 664.6 requires a written settlement signed by the parties.  A review of the settlement agreement submitted by Plaintiff shows that only Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have signed the agreement.  (Motion, Elsheikh Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.)  Defendants have yet to sign the agreement, presumably because the settlement has yet to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.  As the settlement agreement has not been signed by both parties, it cannot be enforced pursuant to CCP section 664.6.

To the extent Plaintiff relies on the December 7, 2021 email from Defendants’ counsel authorizing a settlement of $65,000.00 as constituting the parties’ settlement agreement, the Court finds this email is not a settlement agreement that is enforceable under CCP section 664.6.  Under CCP section 664.6, a writing is considered signed by a party if it is signed by an attorney who represents the party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b)(2).)  The email does not contain any signature from Defendants’ counsel.

Even assuming arguendo that there was a signed settlement agreement between the parties, there is no deadline set forth in the settlement agreement indicating when the review process must occur.  Plaintiff argues that it was understood by the parties that Defendants were required to start the review process of the settlement agreement within a reasonable time—i.e, within 60 days of executing the settlement.  As discussed, there is no deadline set forth in the settlement agreement regarding the review and approval process, much less a 60-day deadline.  To the extent Plaintiff relies on the email from Defendants’ counsel, the Court notes that the email merely indicates that the review process “typically takes 60 days.”  A statement that the review process typically takes 60 days is not a guarantee that the process would occur within 60 days.  Indeed, as explained by Defendants’ counsel, the typical 60-day review process was delayed because of the ongoing pandemic, lack of support staff, and other unforeseen circumstances.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the motion to enforce settlement is DENIED.

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.