Cross v. Meza CA6

Filed 7/17/14 Cross v. Meza CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUAN CROSS et al., H038960 (Monterey County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. M109800)

v.

DOMINGO MEZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant is Domingo Meza, the defendant in the underlying action for personal injuries related to a car accident. He appeals a judgment entered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.61 on the grounds that his attorney made a mistake at the settlement conference. (§ 473, subd. (b) ). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The instant case arises from the settlement of a personal injury action that was filed in December 2010. On November 4, 2011, the Monterey County Superior Court held a mandatory settlement conference. During the settlement conference, both plaintiffs Juan and Angelita Cross and their counsel were personally present in court. Counsel of record for defendant Domingo Meza’s insurance carrier, Edward Cullen, was not personally present, because he was recovering from knee surgery. In his place,

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

attorney Susan Grey made a special appearance. A representative for the insurance carrier was not present, but was available to Ms. Grey by telephone standby.2 At the conference, a settlement was reached that provided that defendant’s insurance carrier would pay $19,900 to Juan Cross, and $17,400 to Angelina Cross. The specific terms were placed on the record in court. In addition, Ms. Grey stated that she was “thoroughly briefed on the case [and] was aware that additional settlement talks between the carrier and Mr. Cullen were to occur the morning of the settlement conference.” Ms. Grey also represented to the court that she had “personally verified the settlement authority on both the Plaintiffs by phone outside the courtroom this afternoon.” On February 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to enter judgment after settlement conference pursuant to section 664.6. Defendant opposed the motion on the ground that Ms. Grey was mistaken about the amount to which she was authorized to settle. Specifically, defendant argued the settlement authority was actually for payment of $22,578 to plaintiffs, rather than the $37,100 to which Ms. Grey agreed at the settlement conference. At the opposition to defendant’s section 664.6 motion, defendant brought Ms.\\ Grey to court to communicate with the judge about her mistake in settlement. At the hearing, Ms. Grey was not sworn as a witness, nor did she provide a sworn declaration of her mistake. She did, however, tell the court, “I was thoroughly briefed on the case; was