Not stated v. Not stated

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

order brought by plaintiff. It is opposed.

Earlier in the case, plaintiff had responded to discovery and sat for a deposition. Defendant then served a second round of discovery including 93 special interrogatories, 48 requests for production, another set of form interrogatories, and a request for a second day of deposition. Plaintiff states that this is over the top and abusive. Plaintiff claims that there was a meet and confer effort, but it was not productive. Plaintiff states that some additional discovery is not necessarily unwarranted, but that this is not proper.

The court previously heard this matter and ordered the parties to conduct further meet and confer efforts. No one has filed anything. The court will inquire as to the meet and confer efforts that were made, but it is unlikely that the court will rule today given the lack of supplemental papers regarding the meet and confer. The court is hopeful that this is because the parties have worked out their differences.

Case Number: 25SMCV01867 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: I

This is a motion by plaintiff to enforce a settlement. Plaintiff contends that on September 11, 2025, the parties settled. According to plaintiff, defendant then tried to change the terms, but plaintiff did not agree to the changes. Plaintiff says that defendant breached the settlement and plaintiff now seeks an order to enforce it under Section 664.6.

The court does not believe that the court can do so. The settlement consists of an exchange of emails. Under the statute, though, that will not do. There must be an executed agreement. Electronic signatures are enough, but an exchange of emails generally is not. The attached emails have signature blocks, but no actual signature.

In J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. V. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, the Court of Appeal discussed this issue. The court concluded that sometimes a printed name or symbol might be enough, but not necessarily. Under the Uniform Electronic Signature Act, the signature must be a sound, symbol, or process adopted by the person to be bound with the intent to sign the electronic record. It is that intent that this exchange of emails lacks.

Plaintiff, perhaps anticipating this, has sought to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to enforce the agreement. Unlike the instant motion, plaintiff can enforce the settlement agreement under normal contract principles if each element can be proven. That is a different question than 664.6, which has other specific requirements. It might even be that whether or not there