Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) · DecisionDepot

Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Mar 31, 1994 No. A062699Published

Before: Haning

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court may enter judgment pursuant to an oral settlement agreement reached during a judicially supervised conference under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and that such agreements are not barred by the statute of frauds.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence of a binding settlement to permit the trial court to enter judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
Whether an oral settlement agreement stipulated to before the court is unenforceable under the statute of frauds if it cannot be performed within one year.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In ruling on a motion to enter judgment the trial court acts as a trier of fact. It must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.”

“We conclude the statute of frauds is inapplicable to an oral settlement agreement stipulated to by the parties before the court following a judicially mandated and supervised settlement conference.”

Synopsis

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

Opinion

HANING, J.

Defendant/appellant Jaymar-Ruby, Incorporated, appeals a judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement with plaintiff/respondent Arthur Kohn in respondent’s action for wrongful termination. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in entering judgment because the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Respondent’s complaint alleged generally that his termination constituted a breach of his oral employment contract not to be terminated except for cause, and a violation of the age discrimination provisions (Gov. Code, § 12941) of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) On March 30, 1993, the parties appeared at a mandatory settlement conference. The court’s March 30 minutes stated that the parties reached a settlement, that the trial date was vacated and that the the matter was set for a status conference on April 28 to determine if dismissals had been filed.

On May 13, 1993, respondent moved to have judgment entered according to the terms of the agreement reached at the March 30 settlement conference on the grounds that appellant had refused to comply. Appellant opposed the

[1533]

motion on the grounds the parties had never reached a final and binding settlement. After a hearing before Judge Breiner, who presided over the settlement conference, respondent’s motion was granted and judgment entered in his favor upon the terms of the settlement to which the parties stipulated on March 30: (1) Appellant to pay respondent $46,000 in settlement of his claims for emotional distress and personal injuries (the alleged statutory violation); (2) respondent to release appellant generally of all liability for any past, present, or future claims he may have against appellant; and (3) respondent to keep the terms of the settlement confidential. The judgment did not include a waiver of Civil Code section 1542

because the parties did not stipulate that the settlement was conditioned upon such a waiver by respondent.

Discussion

Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.

AI Brief

Synopsis

HANING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief