Motion to enforce settlement; Motion for order to enter judgment
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Enforce Settlement in Department 36
Tentative Ruling
Defendants Samuel Gene Dana and Denise G. McCarneys (Defendants) motion to enforce settlement, or in the alternative, for an order to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is GRANTED.
On May 24, 2024, Defendants filed an unauthorized supplement to the reply. On the same day, Plaintiff Delma Jrmar Jefferson (Plaintiff) filed an opposition to the supplement, which included an Affidavit of Truth and Fact. The Court declines to consider Defendants supplement and Plaintiffs opposition to the supplement as they are not allowed pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Court, and the parties did not obtain leave of Court for the filings.
Background
This is a personal injury action arising from a car accident that occurred on September 27, 2020. On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants attended a private mediation which resulted in a written stipulation for settlement that was signed by the parties (Agreement). (Declaration of Mona L. Bauer (Bauer Decl.), Exhibit A.) The Agreement states that it may be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Ibid.) It recites that Defendants will pay Plaintiff $150,000 in exchange for Plaintiffs release and dismissal with prejudice of Defendants. (Ibid.)
The Agreement does not include a timeframe in which the settlement payment will be made, and it contemplates that the parties will prepare a formal settlement agreement to follow at a later date. (Ibid.) The Agreements release and dismissal provisions are limited to Samuel Dana and Denise McCarney. It does not extend to any other defendants in the action. (Ibid.)
Defendants sent the settlement check along with a request for dismissal as to the entire action on December 4, 2024, and it was received by Plaintiff on December 5th. (Bauer Decl., ¶8, Exhibit B.) In early January, Defendants learned that Plaintiff intended to amend his complaint to name new defendants. (Id., ¶10.) After realizing that Plaintiff did not intend to dismiss his entire action, Defendants prepared and sent a new request for dismissal as to Defendants only. (Id., ¶11.) Plaintiff has not yet dismissed the action as to Defendants. Plaintiff has also filed a separate motion to rescind the Agreement.
Plaintiff, appearing in pro per, opposes on the grounds that the Agreement is unfair and unconscionable because he only agreed to release Defendants, not to dismiss his entire action. He further argues Defendants were required to make the settlement payment at the same time the Agreement was signed, and therefore, because payment was issued later, the Agreement is invalid. Plaintiffs 57-page opposition does not comply with
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?”
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Enforce Settlement in Department 36
pages. The Court need not consider arguments raised after page 15. However, it observes that the remainder of Plaintiffs opposition appears to simply expand on these primary arguments.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.
Thus, section 664.6 allows the Court, upon motion, to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement where the parties stipulated to the settlement. The Courts inquiry in ruling on a motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is generally limited to a determination of whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement, and the material terms thereof. (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. w. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn.4; see also Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.) Where entitlement to relief under section 664.6 is established, the trial court may enter a formal judgment setting forth all of the material settlement terms that have yet to be fully performed. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185.)
A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565.) Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment [Citations], 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 have previously agreed upon. (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810 (emphasis original).) Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or whether they are not. (Viejo Bancorp, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 209, fn. 4.)
Discussion
The Court concludes that the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement on November 7, 2023. Defendants have provided evidence that they sent Plaintiff a check for the settlement amount. Although the Agreement does not provide a timeframe for the payment of the settlement funds, it appears Defendants sent the funds in a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, the Court notes that the absence of a timeframe for payment is moot as payment has already been tendered and Defendants have thereby performed.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Enforce Settlement in Department 36
The Court further notes that the Agreement releases only Defendants Dana and McCarney. Therefore, Plaintiffs concerns regarding the dismissal of his remaining causes of action against other defendants are unfounded. The only material term of the Agreement that has not been performed is the dismissal of Defendants with prejudice.
Accordingly, Defendants motion to enforce the settlement agreement, or in the alternative, to enter judgment is GRANTED. The Court will enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to Defendants Dana and McCarney only.
Defendants counsel shall prepare a formal order and a proposed judgment for the Courts signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.
NOTICE:
This tentative ruling shall become the Courts final ruling unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its request for hearing.
The parties may appear remotely through the use of Zoom. The parties may join the Zoom session by audio and/or video through the link/telephone number which can be obtained by contacting the clerk of the court at dept36@saccourt.ca.gov or (916) 874- 7661 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled hearing. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes per side.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Enforce Settlement in Department 36
submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.