This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/03/2016 at 19:14:52 (UTC).

ALLIANCE GUEMING NENKAM VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 12/02/2014 ALLIANCE GUEMING NENKAM filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5424

  • Filing Date:

    12/02/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ALLIANCE GUEMING NENKAM

Defendants and Respondents

ALARCON JOSE

ANDERSON MARK

DOES 1 TO 100

GUSTIN STEVE

MENDOZA YOLANDA

MILLER STEVEN

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD MEAGLIA

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

WADLINGTON MARLON C.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

12/2/2014: SUMMONS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. DISCRIMINATION (GOV'T CODE SECTION 12940A), ETC

9/2/2015: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. DISCRIMINATION (GOV'T CODE SECTION 12940A), ETC

SUMMONS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/2/2015: SUMMONS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/15/2015: DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATESJ PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)

2/19/2016: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATESJ PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)

DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

5/25/2016: DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROCATORIES

5/25/2016: DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROCATORIES

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, ? FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91. 92,93,97)

5/26/2016: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, ? FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91. 92,93,97)

DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S NOTICE OF EX PARTE AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION FOR SUMM

7/5/2016: DEFENDANTS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK ANDERSON, STEVE GUSTIN, YOLANDA MENDOZA, JOSE ALARCON, AND STEVE MILLER'S NOTICE OF EX PARTE AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION FOR SUMM

Minute Order

7/5/2016: Minute Order

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

7/5/2016: ORDER RE DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

7/11/2016: NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

7/13/2016: ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

Minute Order

7/13/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

9/21/2016: NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

Unknown

9/21/2016: Unknown

NOTICE OF CONTINUE DATES

1/17/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUE DATES

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY LIEN

3/29/2017: NOTICE OF ATTORNEY LIEN

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/19/2016
  • Stip & Order-Continue Trial,FSC-PI (FSC: 09-29-16 TRIAL: 10-11-16 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2015
  • First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2015
  • Summons Filed ( on First Amended Complaint ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC565424    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: A

Nenkam v Pasadena Unified School District

Motions to Enforce Settlement (2)

Calendar:

08

Case No.:

BC565424

Hearing Date:

October 25, 2019

Action Filed:

December 02, 2014

Settlement:

June 06, 2019

Motion to Enforce Settlement

MP:

Plaintiff Alliance Gueming Nenkam

RP:

Defendants Pasadena Unified School District; Mark Anderson; Steve Gustin; Yolanda Mendoza; Jose Alarcon; Steven Miller

Motion to Enforce Settlement

MP:

Defendants Pasadena Unified School District; Mark Anderson; Steve Gustin; Yolanda Mendoza; Jose Alarcon; Steven Miller

RP:

Plaintiff Alliance Gueming Nenkam

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Alliance Gueming Nenkam (“Plaintiff”) is a 49-year old, African American female and her national origin is from the country of Cameroon, Africa. She commenced this action against Defendants Pasadena Unified School District, Mark Anderson, Steven Gustin, Yolanda Mendoza, Jose Alarcon, and Steven Miller (“Defendants”), alleging she was harassed and discriminated against based on her race, national origin, skin color, gender, and age.

PRESENTATION:

The action was purportedly settled between the parties on June 06, 2019, after several days of trial. The instant motions to enforce the settlement agreement were filed, respectively, by Plaintiff on September 25, 2019, and by Defendants on October 02, 2019. Defendants and Plaintiff respectively opposed the other’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement on October 11, 2019, and October 16, 2019 (Plaintiff’s opposition is 2 Court days late); and submitted reply briefs on October 16, 2019 (by Plaintiff), and October 18, 2019, (by Defendants).

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff and Defendants each request that the Court adopt the proposed settlement agreement in accordance with their individual interpretation of the agreement regarding Plaintiff’s ‘retirement’.

CONTEXT: The matter proceeded to a jury trial and after a number of days, the parties reached a settlement of their dispute. The case was at issue on the Second Amended Complaint for damages deemed filed May 5, 2017. Although the complaint is quite prolix, the prayer sets forth: 1. General, compensatory, and special damages, according to proof; 2. Punitive damages according to proof; 3. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 5. For prejudgment interest according to statute; 6. For costs of suit according to statute; and 7. For any other relief that is just and proper. A search of the document does not find any reference to the terms “retire” or “retirement.”

The court views the settlement proceedings as set forth in the transcripts as it would a contract. “California recognizes the objective theory of contracts (Berman v Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App. 4th 936, 948, under which “[i]t is the objective intent, as evidenced by the words of the contract rather than the subjective intent of one of the parties, that controls interpretation” (Titan Group, Inc. v Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1122, 1127. The parties undisclosed intent or understanding is irrelevant to contract interpretation.” Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App. 4th 944.”

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – The instant motions relate to an unsigned settlement agreement, whose basic terms were negotiated in open Court, one of which being subject to the instant dispute. Both parties move the Court to enforce their interpretation of the oral agreement reached between the parties in Court, based on information that the parties learned following that agreement that has caused the instant dispute, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6, the Court may enforce the terms of an agreement stipulated “orally before the court” in order to enforce the full performance of the agreement.

The terms of the agreement are: 1) Plaintiff is to receive a monetary settlement of $285,000.00 and a 1099 therefor. 2) The plaintiff is to have retired as of the date of her signature on the formal settlement agreement. 3) Any calls received by Pasadena Unified School District will indicate the date of start of employment and end date of employment. 4) All benefits due plaintiff will be determined as of April 8, 2016. [Mr. Anyia, counsel for plaintiff stated at the transcript page 3, lines 23 – 26 “What we’re trying to clarify is that the benefits that she was – she will be entitled to whatever benefits she was entitled to as of the date of accruement, which is April 8, 2016.” Mr. Wadlington, counsel for the District agreed, and Mr. Anyia stated at page 3:28 through 4:3 “And that the – the term we’re using is retirement, not resignation. She will retire as of the date we sign the agreement from the county. (sic) Not resignation.”

On review of the transcript of the orally agreed terms of the settlement, the Court concludes that, at the time the settlement occurred, the parties had adopted an agreed meaning of the term “retirement” in that the term referred only to ‘not returning to work.’ That the term had a special meaning is clearly implied in the statement “ . . . the term we’re using is retirement, not resignation . . .” That was the court’s understanding, i.e., plaintiff’s motivation in using that term was not to garner some benefits determined by law, but to be able to say truthfully in seeking further employment or other contexts that she had not resigned, but had retired. There was no final expressed intent of either party to include the period of time between April 8, 2016 and the time of signing as any form of calculation of time towards retirement benefits, or to accrue any other legal benefit to Plaintiff. Rather, the parties agreed in open Court that all the benefits due and owing to Plaintiff would be affixed to the April 8, 2016 date, with any retirement terms subject to the determination of PERS and STRS. [Mr. Anyia at page 3 line 2: “No. I’m not talking about PERS and STRS.”]

The dispute now is that if the April 8, 2016 date is used as a benefit accrual date, then no early retirement benefits are accrued, but if the date of signature is used, then plaintiff will have a claim for early retirement benefits, but not regular retirement benefits. The term “early” was not used anywhere in the transcript. While this may have been in the mind of one of more of the persons speaking on the record, it is not objectively discernable from the totality of words that were used at the time.

Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement and deny Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement.

---

RULING: Deny plaintiff’s motion; Grant Defendant’s motion.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Alliance Gueming Nenkam’s and Defendants Pasadena Unified School District; Mark Anderson; Steve Gustin; Yolanda Mendoza; Jose Alarcon; and Steven Miller’s separate Motions to Enforce Settlement came on regularly for hearing on October 25, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED; AND

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE