DACHNER vs LANDERS

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CVRI2404163 DACHNER vs LANDERS CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 664.6; FOR SANCTIONS; AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Tentative Ruling:

Moving party: Defendant Rocco Landers Responding party: Plaintiff Greg Dachner

First Amended Complaint (FAC). This is an action for personal injuries arising from a motorcycle accident. Plaintiff Greg Dachner brought suit on July 22, 2024 against Defendants Rocco Landers (“Rocco”), Stoney Landers (“Stoney”), Jaime Landers (“Jaime”), and Landers Racing Team. Stoney and Jaime are the owners, managers, and operators of Landers Racing Team. Plaintiff is an automotive engineer who has been riding motorcycles for most of his life. Plaintiff alleges that on January 14, 2024, Rocco was riding on behalf of Landers Racing Team under the supervision of Stoney and Jaime.

During a second riding session, Rocco crashed his motorcycle twice within approximately ten minutes, yet failed to sit out or seek guidance on correcting his riding errors. Despite these incidents, Stoney and Jaime took no action to remove Rocco from the track or ensure that he was riding safely. Plaintiff alleges this failure to intervene or supervise appropriately amounted to a lack of care and an extreme departure from the standard of conduct expected of reasonably careful individuals in their position.

This alleged gross negligence contributed to the subsequent collision in the third session, during which Rocco lost control and struck Plaintiff.

The operative FAC, filed September 30, 2024, asserts a single cause of action for negligence.

Settlement. On February 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a conditional Notice of Settlement of Entire Case and that a request for dismissal will be filed no later than April 13, 2026.

Motion. Defendant Rocco now moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 enforcing the parties’ Settlement Agreement dated February 10, 2025 (the “Agreement”), retaining jurisdiction under 664.6 to enforce settlement, dismiss the entire action with prejudice as to Rocco, and awarding monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $2,572 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

In opposition, Plaintiff points out no agreement was ever signed by the parties or their attorneys. Plaintiff argues that the cases Defendant relies on are inapplicable.

In reply, Defendant generally repeats his arguments set forth in moving papers.

Analysis

I. Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “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. 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.”

The purpose of section 664.6 is to permit a court, via a summary proceeding, to finally dispose of an action when the existence of the agreement or the terms of the settlement are subject to reasonable dispute. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) When ruling on a section 664.6 motion, the trial court acts as a trier of fact to determine whether a settlement has occurred, which is also an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement. (Skulnick v.

Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.) In ruling on the motion, the court may receive oral testimony or may determine the motions upon declarations. (Corkland, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at 994.) “[N]othing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984.) A breach of the settlement agreement is not required to support the motion. (Hines v.

Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1184-1185.)

For purposes of section 664.6, an attorney who represents a party to the settlement may sign the agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) This also applies to oral settlements before the court. Following the 2021 amendment to the statute, parties are not required to orally stipulate to the terms of settlement; instead, counsel may orally stipulate on the party’s behalf. (Greisman v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 103, Cal.App.5th 1310, 1325-1326.)

Settlement agreements are governed by contract law. (Folsom v. Butte County Association of Governments (19820 32 Cal.3d 668, 667.) Importantly, on a motion to enforce a settlement under section 664.6, the court may only interpret the terms of the settlement but may not create material terms upon which the parties did not previously agree. (Weddington Productions v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.)

II. Merits

On February 7, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff, David R. Flyer (“Flyer”), offered the following terms to settle with the understanding that any counteroffer is a revocation: (1) mutual walk-away, zero dollars; (2) full release and waiver of Civil Code 1542; and (3) non-disparagement and confidentiality. (Assanti Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant replied that he was “interested in resolving this matter through a mutual waiver of costs and a dismissal of the entire action, with prejudice, as to all causes of action, nothing more.” (Id.) Defendant emphasized he would not take any terms connected to a settlement in a

subsequent email, rejecting Plaintiff’s request for terms of confidentiality and nondisparagement. (Id., Exh. B.) Thereafter, on February 9, 2026, Flyer replied, “We accept the mutual settlement you have outlined.” (Id., Exh. C.) The next day on February 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed the Notice of Settlement.

However, here it is undisputed that the proposed Agreement was never signed by either party. (See Assanti Decl., Exh. E (“Proposed Agreement”).) The parties’ attorneys also did not sign the proposed Agreement. (Id.) Moreover, there is no evidence of any oral stipulation before the court. All parties to be bound must agree to the material terms and thus, absent oral assent in open court, a written agreement is enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 only if signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought and by the party seeking to enforce it. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 305; Gallo v. Getz (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 329, 333.)

Although Defendant relies on BTHHM Berkeley, LLC v. Johnston (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1220 in seeking enforcement of the unsigned Proposed Agreement, this case is factually distinguishable because the parties there signed a Settlement Term Sheet Agreement after telemediation. (Id. at 1222.)

While Flyer communicated that the parties agreed to a settlement, the parties never finalized the settlement agreement or terms therein. A trial court cannot apply the summary procedure for a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement where not all of the parties signed the settlement agreement. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 992 [finding error where the trial court enforced a settlement agreement under § 664.6 based on it being “more likely than not” a party had agreed to settle after sending an email indicating acceptance but never signing a formal settlement agreement].)

While Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (b)(2) does indicate a signature from a party’s attorney will suffice, there is no such signature – only an email mentioning a settlement. There is no enforceable settlement agreement for the Court to enter judgment upon. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HENDERSON vs CVRI2407151 AMERICAN HONDA MOTION TO COMPEL MOTOR CO., INC. Tentative Ruling:

Moving party: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Responding party: Plaintiff Amber Henderson

Complaint & Allegations. Plaintiff Amber Henderson brings this Song-Beverly action regarding a 2024 Honda Accord Hybrid (the “Vehicle”) that developed defects and nonconformities during the applicable warranty period. On December 31, 2024,