GARY EISENBERG VS HILLARY COPELAND ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2539 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: T

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1. INTRODUCTION

   On July 6, 2021, Defendant Regan Copeland (“Defendant”) filed a motion to enforce settlement. The motion seeks an order dismissing the case pursuant to the settlement entered on record at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on March 4, 2021, and the signed stipulated settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant dated March 12, 2021.

2. DISCUSSION

   CCP section 664.6 provides that “[i]f the parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for a settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 664.6.)

   Here, there are three potential bases for this motion:

   A. “ORALLY BEFORE THE COURT”

   The parties entered into an oral stipulation before the Court whereby Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff a total of $29,000.00 to cover any and all medical costs and each side agreed to bear their own costs and attorney fees. (Motion, Liebhaber Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) This is reflected in the minutes of the court on 3/4/202. While the parties’ oral stipulation complies with CCP section 664.6 and thus can be enforced pursuant to section 664.6, the oral stipulation does not provide for terms of dismissal. As the oral stipulation does not provide for terms of dismissal, this Court cannot issue a court order enforcing the settlement by dismissing this matter. The Court notes that the only way to enforce the parties’ oral stipulation is to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for $29,000.00 and a waiver of costs, which is not what Defendant is seeking by way of this motion to enforce settlement.

   B. “IN A WRITING SIGNED BY THE PARTIES”

   Defendant’s counsel also put the settlement agreement in writing, which was signed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel on March 12, 2021. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) The written agreement confirms that the parties agreed Defendant would pay $29,000.00 to Plaintiff. (Id., Ex. C, Settlement Agreement, Settlement Terms, ¶¶ 1-2.) The written agreement also provides that the settlement amount “shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney after receipt by defense counsel of the executed Settlement Agreement and executed dismissal” and that “[a]ll settlement payments will be held in trust by Plaintiff’s counsel until the Request for Dismissal of the entire action with prejudice as against Defendants has been filed with the Court.” (Id., Ex. C, Settlement Agreement, Settlement Terms, ¶ 4.) The Court finds the written settlement agreement does not comply with CCP section 664.6 requirements. CCP section 664.6 requires a written settlement to be signed by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 664.6.) The written agreement was only signed by Plaintiff and not Defendant. The written agreement thus cannot be enforced pursuant to CCP section 664.6.

   C. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND SATISFACTION

   Finally, if Defendant paid the $29,000.00, then the Court could enforce the settlement by dismissing the case (i.e. entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $29,000.00 with waiver of costs per the parties’ oral stipulation and then finding that the judgment has been satisfied such that the case can be dismissed.) This could be a potential way for the case to be resolved and for Defendant to get the dismissal sought. However, Defendant would have to provide evidence that payment was tendered to Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel, which was not done with respect to this motion.

   Based on the evidence submitted, accordingly, the motion to enforce settlement is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED, ____________________ TO GIVE NOTICE.

Case Number: ****2539    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 5

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 5 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred to THE NORTHWEST DISTRICT, JUDGE HUEY P. COTTON presiding in DEPT. A of the VAN NUYS Courthouse, for further assignment to an Independent Calendar Courtroom.

Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

PlaintiffS shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: December 17, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court