Williams v. 1819 S. Gramercy CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jan 22, 2025 No. B337688Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, finding that the agreement contained all essential terms, was signed by the parties, and was not subject to invalidation by unilateral mistake or mediation privilege concerns.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in enforcing a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
Whether statements made during mediation are admissible to challenge the validity of a settlement agreement.
Whether a party's unilateral mistake regarding the scope of a release renders a settlement agreement unenforceable.
Whether an attorney of record has the exclusive authority to represent a client in enforcement proceedings.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The material terms of the settlement were explicitly defined in the two-page mediation agreement: appellant would receive $69,500 in exchange for releasing all claims arising from the case.”

“Evidence of statements made during mediation is barred by the mediation privilege.”

“Appellant bears the risk of mistake because it arises from his neglect in failing to read or understand the agreement’s clear terms.”

Filed 1/22/25 Williams v. 1819 S. Gramercy CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PHILL J. WILLIAMS, B337688

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV21156) v.

1819 S. GRAMERCY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Timothy P. Dillon, Judge. Affirmed.

Phill J. Williams, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

The Safarian Firm, Harry A. Safarian, Christina Karayan, and Hillary D. Patton for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Phill J. Williams appeals from a judgment entered following an order enforcing a settlement agreement resolving his claims against defendants 1819 S. Gramercy, LLC, and KMM Management, Inc. (respondents). Appellant contends the agreement is unenforceable due to communications during mediation, unilateral mistake, lack of attorney authority, and other grounds. Finding no error, we affirm.1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2020, appellant filed a complaint against his landlord, 1819 S. Gramercy, LLC, and property manager, KMM Management, Inc., alleging habitability violations and premises liability claims. In August 2022, attorney Nissan Thomas became counsel of record for appellant. The parties attended mediation on October 12, 2023, that resulted in a signed agreement in which appellant agreed to release all claims in exchange for $69,500. The agreement was signed by appellant, his counsel, and respondents’ counsel on behalf of respondents. In the agreement it was expressly provided

Williams v. 1819 S. Gramercy CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PHILL J. WILLIAMS, B337688

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief