Joe Granada et al vs Regents of the University of California et al
Case No: 18CV00086
Hearing Date: Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Enforce Settlement

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of defendants to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is denied without prejudice.

Background:

On January 8, 2018, plaintiffs Joe Granada, Jaime Flores Polanco, Alejandro Saavedra, Estaban Mora, Ismael Rodrigues, and Eduardo Isqueda filed their original complaint in this action against defendants Regents of the University of California (Regents) and Stephen Klock.

On March 8 and May 17, 2019, the parties went to a mediation represented by counsel. (Miller decl., ¶ 2.) At the mediation on May 17, the parties agreed to a settlement. (Miller decl., ¶ 3 & exhibit A.) (Note: The declaration fails to include electronic bookmarks for exhibits as required by Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4).) Each of the plaintiffs signed a “short form” written settlement agreement. (Miller decl., exhibit A.)

Some of the defendants have not agreed to sign the long form settlement agreement. (Miller decl., ¶ 4; Blackwell decl., ¶¶ 2-8; Bernal decl., ¶¶ 2-12.)

Defendants now move to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

No opposition has been filed to this motion.

Analysis:

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

There are two problems with granting this motion as presented. First, “the statute’s requirement of a writing ‘signed by the parties’ … require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 305.) The signature blocks for each of the written settlement agreements contain only a signature for the respective plaintiff. There is no signature on behalf of either defendant as a party. (Miller decl., exhibit A.) Specifically, there is no signature identified as a signature on behalf of the Regents. (See Provost v. Regents of University of California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295-1298.) There are signatures of unidentified persons signing “Approval As To Form.” However, there is no evidence that those signatures are on behalf of parties as opposed to counsel approving the form of the agreement. (See Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 792.)

Second, each of the settlement agreements contain the additional term (number 4): “Plaintiff understands this agreement is subject to the Regents’ approval ….” On its face, and particularly in connection with the absence of a signature by a person authorized to sign on behalf of the Regents, this term implies a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the settlement is approval by the Regents. There is no evidence presented in this motion that the Regents have approved the settlement. The absence of a signature on behalf of the Regents on the agreement itself is evidence that the Regents did not, contemporaneously with the signature by the plaintiffs, approve the settlement. The other evidence presented only confirms the absence of agreement as to a long form settlement.

The court therefore has insufficient evidence before it to find that there now exists a settlement agreement enforceable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Accordingly, the motion will be denied without prejudice.