DEFENDANT ZOOX, INC.’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
JUNE 29, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 5 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 2 25-CIV-02450 VERONICA NAVARRO VS. STEPHEN PRESTON MEALIFFE, ET AL
VERONICA NAVARRO STEPHEN R. JAFFE STEPHEN PRESTON MEALIFFE
DEFENDANT ZOOX, INC.’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Motion to Enforce Settlement by Defendant Zoox, Inc. (“Defendant”) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff Veronica Navarro (“Plaintiff”) brought an action against Defendant, her former employer. In May 2025, the parties signed a Confidential Settlement and General Release Agreement. October 17, 2025 Compendium of Evidence (“Compendium”) Exhs. 18 and 19. This settlement agreement includes a procedure for remediation of a Seagate hard drive that was owned by Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 2.1.2. Upon completion of the remediation, the parties agreed they would sign a Mutual General Release. Id. ¶ 2.2, and Exh. B.
Defendant brings this Motion seeking to enforce the settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
On a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” Id. The court may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to. Id. However, while the court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves agreed. Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 790.
Despite Plaintiff and Zoox signing the Confidential Settlement and General Release Agreement, Plaintiff argues that no settlement agreement ever existed and that she only indicated her agreement to participate in the remediation procedure set forth in Section 2.1.2. However, Plaintiff’s interpretation is contradicted by the plain language of the Confidential Settlement and General Release Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement states that the parties desire to resolve any and all disputes arising from Plaintiff’s employment.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Compendium Exhs. 18 and 19. The agreement also includes a release of claims. Id. The agreement states that it shall become effective on the eighth calendar day after the last party executes the agreement if Plaintiff does not timely revoke the agreement as set forth in section 18.7, which provides for revocation from seven days following execution of the agreement. Id. Plaintiff executed the agreement on May 22, 2025. Id. Ex.
18. Plaintiff has not shown that she revoked the agreement within seven days of executing it.
Furthermore, Plaintiff is clearly wrong—the remediation procedure was not a condition precedent to the settlement agreement becoming effective. Civil Code, § 1436. Instead, the agreement provides that upon completion of the remediation, the parties agreed to sign and deliver the Mutual General Release and
JUNE 29, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 6 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Zoox would make a cash payment to Plaintiff upon compliance with the agreement and execution and delivery of the Mutual General Release. Compendium Exhs. 18 and 19. “If the Mutual General Release does not become final and effective for any reason, the Company’s obligation to provide the Mutual General Release Consideration shall cease, and Employee shall have no right or entitlement to the Mutual General Release Consideration.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that the agreement is only binding upon completion of the remediation is not supported by the text of the agreement.
Accordingly, the court finds that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement.
In this Motion, Zoox asks the court to enter an order that (among other things): Setec permanently delete all data from the Seagate Drive that was not identified by Navarro as, and confirmed by Zoox’s representative to be, “Personal Data” or “Authorized Data” (as those terms are in defined in the Settlement Agreement) on June 3, 2025 and return the Seagate Drive to Navarro within five calendar days of the order granting the Motion. It then asks the Court to make Orders enforcing terms that are to follow the completion of the remediation process.
The agreement sets forth a procedure that the parties agreed to related to the remediation of the Seagate drive, including that “the Neutral shall return the Seagate Drive to Employee.” At the remediation, an alternative approach apparently took place in which Plaintiff’s personal files were copied onto a new external hard drive. It appears that the Seagate drive did not get returned to Plaintiff as provided for in the agreement. While Zoox may very well have been acting in good faith in an attempt to work with Plaintiff and further negotiate return of the drive (and Plaintiff may have waived any objection to the alternate procedure and any delay effected by her agreement), nevertheless Zoox has not demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that the remediation is complete as set forth in the agreement entitling it at this time to an order enforcing the agreement by requiring Plaintiff to sign the Mutual General Release and dismiss this action.
While the Court hopes it becomes unnecessary, it would entertain a subsequent motion to enforce once the remediation process is complete pursuant to the parties agreement or if Zoox can establish that Plaintiff is in breach of her obligations in relation to the remediation process.
In the same vein, to the extent that Zoox also seeks an order for Setec to permanently delete all data from the Seagate Drive that was not identified by Navarro as, and confirmed by Zoox’s representative to be, “Personal Data” or “Authorized Data” (as those terms are in defined in the Settlement Agreement) on June 3, 2025 and return the Seagate drive to Plaintiff, Zoox has not established why such an order is necessary when this language is already part of the settlement agreement. Such actions also pertain to Setec and not Plaintiff and Setec is not a party to this action or obviously subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Based on the above, the court does not need to address Plaintiff’s assertion of rescission of the settlement agreement at this time, but based on the submissions to date it has serious doubts about Plaintiff’s ability to establish grounds of rescission for multiple reasons. The Court encourages the parties to work together to effectuate the terms of the settlement agreement and avoid additional motion practice.
Zoox’s Evidentiary Objections are ruled on as follows:
Jaffe Declaration
Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10: SUSTAINED on ground(s) raised by Zoox.
Nos. 3, 5-9, 11-18: OVERRULED.
JUNE 29, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 7 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff’s Declaration
No. 1, 3, 15, 16, 20, 21: SUSTAINED on ground(s) raised by Zoox.
Nos. 2, 4-11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22-27: OVERRULED.
No. 14: SUSTAINED to “illegal extortion” as legal conclusion and improper opinion testimony, and opinions regarding Zoox’s motivations as speculation and OVERRULED to remainder.
Nos. 18: SUSTAINED based on Hearsay to the extent that the out-of-court statements are being offered for their truth.
No. 28: SUSTAINED to “No settlement agreement between me and Zoox has ever existed” as legal conclusion and improper opinion testimony and OVERRULED to remainder.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.