Heebner v. Siegel CA4/1

Filed 6/18/25 Heebner v. Siegel CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LESA HEEBNER et al., D084146

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2017-00015622- CU-DF-CTL, 37–2017-00040822- EDWARD SIEGEL, CU-DF-CTL)

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert C. Longstreth, Judge. Affirmed. Bona Law and Aaron Gott for Defendant and Appellant. Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley Schena & Bush, Dick A. Semerdjian, Kristen M. Bush; and Keith Rutman, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Lesa Heebner, Mike Nichols, and Joseph Balla (collectively, plaintiffs) executed a preliminary settlement term sheet (term sheet) with defendant Edward Siegel to resolve their defamation and invasion of privacy claims against him. Plaintiffs moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 for the entry of a judgment pursuant to the term sheet after the parties

were unable to agree on a long-form settlement agreement.1 The trial court entered a judgment that recited some—but not all—of the term sheet’s provisions, although the court also attached the term sheet and expressly incorporated it by reference. Siegel claims that the judgment is invalid on two alternative theories. First, he argues that the judgment does not contain all the material provisions of the term sheet because they are not stated on the “face” of the document. Second, he asserts that the parties’ underlying settlement agreement must be set aside because it contains a material term that is an unenforceable “agreement to agree.” But it is settled law that a judgment includes the contents of documents expressly incorporated by reference. And Siegel forfeited his unenforceability argument by failing to raise it below. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.