Bynum Eugene Gabriel, et al. v. Martha Guevara Siu

BYNUM EUGENE GABRIEL, et al.

v.

MARTHA GUEVARA SIU

Procedural/Factual Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 21, 2022.

On August 12, 2024, Plaintiffs Bynum Eugene Gabriel and Gabriella Romero filed a

judicial council form complaint against Defendants Guevara Siu, Tania Siu, Uber Technologies,

Inc. (dismissed 5/26/2026), Rasier-Ca, LLC (dismissed 5/26/2026), and Rasier LLC (dismissed

5/26/2026) alleging causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.

Now before the Court is Defendants Martha Guevara Siu and Tania Siu’s motion to enforce

settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, arguing that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit should

never have been filed because on December 19, 2023, Romero signed a full release of her claims

against Martha and Tanis in exchange for the payment of $50,000 (Kandarian-Stein Decl. Exh. A),

and that on February 13, 2024, Gabriel signed a full release of his claims against Marta and Tanis

also in exchange for the payment of $50,000 (Kandarian-Stein Decl. Exh. B). 1

1No disrespect is intended by use of Defendants’ first names which are used to avoid confusion

because of their shared surname. 2

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion arguing that the motion was never appropriate and is

no longer necessary because Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss this action so that they can proceed

with their underinsured motorist claim. Defendants reply.

Although stating that they are prepared to dismiss the entire action, Plaintiffs have not yet

done so. On May 26, 2026, Plaintiffs dismissed, with prejudice, Defendants Uber Technologies,

Inc., Raiser-CA, LLC, and Raiser, LLC, but Plaintiffs have not filed dismissals for Martha and

Tania.

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Defendants’ motion.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a), provides in relevant part: “If

parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.” The signed writing is valid

if signed by the party, an attorney who represents the party, or, if the party is an insurer, an agent

who is authorized in writing to sign on the insurer’s behalf. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd.

(b).)

Section 664.6 provides for a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by

entering judgment under the terms of the settlement. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th

1174, 1182 (Hines).) The Court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and

binding settlement. (Hines, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182.) This inquiry includes (i)

determining that all material settlement terms are defined, (ii) the parties understand those terms,

and (iii) the parties expressly acknowledge their understanding and agreement to be bound by those

terms. (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 911.) In determining these factors, the

Court can consider the parties’ declarations, other evidence, and oral testimony. (Hines, supra,

167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182; Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) The Court

acts as the trier of fact. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533; Skulnick

v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.) Upon finding an enforceable and binding

settlement was reached, the court should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment under the

terms of the settlement. (Hines, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th pp. 1182-83.)

In ruling on a motion to enforce settlement, the court necessarily has the power to resolve

factual disputes relating to the agreement. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357.)

Although a judge hearing a motion to enforce settlement may receive evidence, determine disputed

facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, the judge is not authorized to

create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves

have previously agreed upon. (Id. at 1360.)

Analysis

Defendants’ motion must be denied because the summary procedure of Code of Civil

Procedure section 664.4 is unavailable to enforce their pre-litigation settlements. (Kirby v.

Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 840, 845.)

In Kirby, the specific question before the Court was whether “the summary procedures of

section 664.6 apply to the enforcement of a settlement agreement made at a time when no litigation

was pending?” (Id. at p. 844.) The Court answered in the negative holding that the “clear and

unambiguous” language of the statue limits its reach to “settlement agreements entered into while

litigation between the parties is pending.” (Id. at p. 845.) The Court reasoned that to the extent a

party wishes to enforce the terms of a pre-litigation release in a subsequent matter, the party must

establish the enforceability of the agreement by motion for summary judgment or by litigating the

factual issues at trial. (Id. at p. 846.)

Defendants’ releases were signed by Plaintiffs on December 19, 2023, and February 13,

2024, before Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on August 12, 2024. As a result, these agreements

cannot be enforced under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.4.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Defendants’ motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants Martha Guevara Siu and Tania

Siu’s motion to enforce settlement as Code of Civil Procedure section 664.4 does not apply to

the settlement agreements at issue.

However, given the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the parties have agreed to settle

Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs are prepared to dismiss the action, the Court will discuss

with the parties at the hearing on July 15, 2026 whether Plaintiffs will dismiss the entire

action with prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to provide notice.

5