Tine F Sloan vs Gregg Patronyk
Case No: 17CV00197
Hearing Date: Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Tentative Ruling: The court denies plaintiff and cross-defendant Tine F. Sloan’s motion to enforce settlement agreement.

Background: On April 16, 2018, plaintiff/cross-defendant Tine F. Sloan, cross-defendant Michael Corrigan, defendant/cross-complainant Gregg Patronyk, and cross-defendants Joyce and Richard Axilrod entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (“SA”) resolving their disputes in this action. On April 25, 2018, the parties jointly requested dismissal of the entire action, and the court entered dismissal of the action with prejudice. The request for dismissal and the SA provide that the court is to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the SA pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

The pertinent terms of the SA are: 1. The parties would execute an Amended and Restated Roadway Easement Use and Maintenance Agreement (REUMA). 2. Patronyk would pay Sloan $100,000 as reimbursement for attorney fees, evidenced by a note and secured by a deed of trust. 3. After execution of the REUMA, note, and deed of trust, the parties would dismiss the action with prejudice.

Motion: Sloan moves the court to enforce the SA. Sloan states that she and Axilrod have agreed, under the REUMA, to bury powerlines that hang above the roadway on the easement; Patronyk has failed to act as agent to contract for the power line improvements on the easement; and that Sloan is authorized, under the REUMA, to act as attorney-in-fact to apply for permits and obtain bids for the project. Sloan asks for an order directing Patronyk to appoint her as his attorney-in-fact for contracting for the power line project, pay her attorney fees for bringing the motion, and pay liquidated damages pursuant to the REUMA.

Sloan served the motion on two lawyers, Peter A. Muzinich and Mark T. Coffin. Neither attorney is attorney of record for any party to this action. On April 6, 2018, Patronyk filed a substitution of counsel replacing himself as representative and relieving former counsel Paul H. Sweeney. In correspondence submitted in support of the motion, Mr. Muzinich has stated that he represents Patronyk regarding his business and real estate matters including the terms under the REUMA. He says nothing about representing Patronyk in this lawsuit or accepting service on behalf of Patronyk in this lawsuit.

Mr. Coffin has filed an opposition to the motion, though he has not filed a substitution of attorney. In the opposition, counsel indicates that Patronyk did initiate the permit procedures. He says that Southern California Edison approved the plan and will issue permits subject to certain conditions, including payments, which Sloan has failed to pay.

The motion goes too far. The SA requires Patronyk to execute the REUMA, note, and deed of trust; pay money; and dismiss the action. Patronyk executed the REUMA and the action has been dismissed. (The note, deed of trust, and payment are not at issue.) Sloan wants the court to resolve an entirely new dispute arising under the REUMA regarding burying power lines. The first amended complaint in this suit alleged issues of paving the easement, access to the easement, and obstructions on the easement. There was no mention of burying power lines. In any event, the SA supplants the first amended complaint.

Patronyk may or may not have done everything the REUMA requires but he has done everything the SA requires. The REUMA is a new contract. The court has not retained jurisdiction to enforce every conceivable dispute that arises under the REUMA with respect to the easement in the future. If Sloan wishes to have the court enforce the REUMA, she must file a new action, not a motion in the dismissed suit.

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies plaintiff and cross-defendant Tine F. Sloan’s motion to enforce settlement agreement.