2015-00181069-CU-PO

Lorrie Harris vs. Starbucks Corporation

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Filed By: Marlink, Katherine L.

If oral argument is requested, it will be heard at 2:00 pm on Monday, April 2, 2018 in this department.

Defendant Starbucks’ Motion to Enforce Settlement and Dismiss Case Pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 664.6 is unopposed and is GRANTED.

On June 29, 2015, plaintiff Lorrie Harris filed her form complaint for personal injury and premises liability against Starbucks Corp. for injuries incurred when plaintiff fell over computer cords placed across the walkway at Starbucks coffee shop located at 6303 Garfield Ave., Sacramento.

On Nov. 29, 2017, at the Mandatory Settlement Conference in Dept. 59, assisted by volunteer civil settlement attorney Denis Donovan, Plaintiff Lorrie Harris and Starbucks entered into a confidential settlement of the entire action. Plaintiff agreed to accept a specified amount in full settlement of her entire action, and within five days of receipt of that sum, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire action with prejudice. The Stipulation for Settlement C.C.P., sec. 664.6; Order was signed by all parties and their counsel, and by the settlement Judge, and expressly made enforceable by this Court under C.C.P., sec. 664.6. (Marlink Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. A)

Defendant sent plaintiff’s counsel the agreed upon amount on Feb. 13, 2018. (Marlink Dec., ¶ 4) Plaintiff has failed to dismiss the action.

By the terms of that agreement, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

As moving party Defendant has paid plaintiff the sums required by the terms of the stipulated and agreed-to settlement agreement, but the plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement she herself signed, this Court therefore orders the action against Starbucks by plaintiff be dismissed.

It bears noting, trial courts do have the inherent power to dismiss the matter pursuant to an agreed-to settlement. “Courts have inherent power, separate from any statutory authority, to control the litigation before them and to adopt any suitable method of practice, even if the method is not specified by

statute or by the Rules of Court. [Citations.]” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1595.)

The Court will sign the formal order provided.