Judge: William F. Highberger, Case: 22STCV13452, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13452 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: 10
JCCP 5000 Woolsey Fire Cases
22STCV13452 Austin v. Southern California Edison Co.
April 24, 2024 Tentative Rulings
Defense Motion to Compel Signature on Settlement Agreement: Grant in part subject to limited further briefing and argument. Each party may file a further brief by May 08, 2024. Further hearing on May 17, 2024 at 2:30 p.m.
Plaintiff, while represented by counsel, signed the Resolution Protocol by which the claims of many plaintiffs, though not all plaintiffs, in this coordinated proceeding have been resolved. Walsh Decl. Ex. 2. That agreement, while prolix, constituted a written settlement agreement of a plaintiff’s claims subject to various valuation processes to determine the amount of such claim. Walsh Decl. Ex. 1. It specifically provided on the final page, directly above Edison’s signature, as follows:
1. Any dispute as to the
interpretation of this Protocol shall be resolved by the Special Master and the
Special Master’s decision shall be binding on Edison and the Opt-In
Plaintiff(s) subject to the dispute.
2. The terms of this Protocol
constitute a binding and enforceable agreement as contemplated under CCP 664.6
between Edison and each Opt-In Plaintiff.
3. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not bar or otherwise preclude an Opt-In Plaintiff from any rights or claims then available in any bankruptcy proceeding commenced by any Edison entity.
Id. at 14 (bold emphasis added).
The future events by which final claim valuation would occur all constituted conditions subsequent in the Resolution Protocol for the liquidation of the inchoate tort claim to a sum certain that would be paid by defendant to plaintiff in full resolution of the claims. In concept, there would be a period for informal negotiation of possible settlement, followed by a non-binding mediation process, if needed. Failing agreement by such time, the parties would either move on to “binding mediation” (via either a “standard mediation” where the neutral picked the final number or via a “Baseball-style” mediation where each side would make a last, best, and final offer and see which one was selected by the neutral) or to a trial in Superior Court subject to conditions. Here, when voluntary mediation failed and after Plaintiff and her lawyer parted ways via a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, the parties held a “standard” binding mediation before JAMS mediator Michael G. Ornstil, resulting in a written award on February 27, 2024. Walsh Decl. Ex. 5. That award gave Plaintiff Austin, now self-represented, $590,000.00 for her claims in addition to the recovery she had obtained via first-party property insurance.
By reference to provisions of the Resolution Protocol at § M(3), which provide that the plaintiff/claimant will promptly sign the form Settlement Agreement with the award amount included after such document is presented for signature, and Plaintiff Austin’s failure to do so, Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) now asks the Court to enter an Order “that Austin enter into a settlement agreement incorporating the binding mediation award in compliance with the Resolution Protocol within five (5) days of this Order.” [Proposed] Order (lodged March 18, 2024).
Plaintiff has filed a Declaration in lieu of a formal legal memorandum. She notes the difficulties that parties had in scheduling a binding mediation on account of the unwillingness of most pre-selected binding mediators and other alterative mediator candidates to conduct proceedings with self-represented parties. She notes her displeasure with her former counsel. She notes the delay in the delivery of the award after the binding mediation was held. SCE sufficiently refutes each point in its reply, noting in particular that challenges to a late award need to be made before the award is rendered, which did not occur here.
SCE has demonstrated that § 664.6 applies to this dispute and that it is entitled to relief to finalize the settlement. The “fly in the ointment,” however, is that SCE does not ask for the correct relief to which it is entitled. The relevant provision at § 664.6(a) provides that “the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” The problem with SCE’s [Proposed] Order (and its noticed motion) is that it wants the Court to issue some kind of mandatory injunction that Ms. Austin be forced to sign a Settlement Agreement. This is not exactly how it is supposed to happen to the Court’s understanding.
In the Court’s view SCE is entitled to a ruling that Judgment be entered in Plaintiff’s favor for $590,000.00 and nothing more (e.g., no costs or attorney fees) as against Southern California Edison Company only in full resolution of her claims. If SCE wants to include a further provision in the Judgment that Plaintiff sign a Settlement Agreement, it may do so, but the remedy for non-compliance by Plaintiff with such an order is not a civil contempt proceeding against Plaintiff to force compliance. Rather resort to the procedures detailed in Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021; and Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635 n.2, is required. A court employee becomes the “elisor” who executes the settlement agreement on behalf of Plaintiff absent her willingness to do so. Why this is needed if a Judgment has already been entered, extinguishing all of Plaintiff’s tort claims, is not obvious.