2010-00074189-CU-BT

Alicia Zapata vs. Ford Motor Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Filed By: Kenney, Austin B.

Defendants Santander Consumer USA, Inc. and CitiFinancial Auto Credit, Inc.’s
(“Santander”) Motion for Order Enforcing Settlement and Awarding Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs against defendant PFLK, Inc. d.b.a. Folsom Lake Kia (“PFLK”) is
unopposed and is GRANTED.

In ruling upon a Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 motion for entry of judgment
enforcing a settlement agreement, and in determining whether the parties entered into
a binding settlement of all or part of a case, a trial court should consider whether (1)
the material terms of the settlement were explicitly defined, (2) the supervising judicial
officer questioned the parties regarding their understanding of those terms, and (3) the
parties expressly acknowledged their understanding of and agreement to be bound by
those terms. In making the foregoing determination, the trial court may consider
declarations of the parties and their counsel, any transcript of the stipulation orally
presented and recorded by a certified reporter, and any additional oral testimony. In re
Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 896, 911.

Moreover, in interpreting the stipulation/agreement, the terms must be sufficiently
definite to enable the Court to give them an exact meaning. (See Weddington
Productions, Inc. v Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811.) It is well established that a
settlement agreement is a contract and the legal principles which apply to contracts
generally apply to settlement contracts. The interpretation of a written instrument is a
judicial function which is exercised according to general canons of interpretation so
that the purposes of the instrument are to be given effect. Parsons v Bristol
Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 [“The fundamental goal of contractual

interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. Civil Code sec.
1636. All material terms of the settlement are set forth in the agreement, and it is clear
from its terms that it was intended to be a final agreement.”] The same applies in the
instant case to the settlement stipulation/agreement.

In this action on July 31, 2013, the parties entered a Stipulation for Settlement
(“Stipulation”) following a Mandatory Settlement Conference in this Court. The parties
specifically agreed to terms including payment of funds by or on behalf of PFLK to
Santander by or before August 31, 2013.

The judicially-supervised settlement was memorialized in writing in the Stipulation and
approved by the Court, and further memorialized in a written Settlement Agreement
and Release (“Agreement”) signed, inter alia, by Santander and approved by all
counsel as to form, that attached and incorporated the terms of the Stipulation. The
Stipulation was expressly made enforceable pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 664.6, and the
Court retained jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement. The Stipulation
provided for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

PFLK agreed to pay the balance due on the purchase of a Ford Explorer of $18,466.53
within 30 days of July 31, 2013, or by August 31, 2013. The Stipulation also called for
the payment of $23,000 by PFLK to Santander within 30 days. (Kenney Dec. para. 5,
Exh A., paras. 3 and 4(a)) Thus a total sum of $41,466.53 was due to Santander from
PFLK or its insurance carrier by August 31, 2013.

PFLK has not complied with the terms of the Stipulation and the parties’ agreement
regarding payment to Santander. No good cause has been given PFLK’s failure to
comply. (Kenny Dec., paras. 11, 14.)

The moving parties have shown to the Court’s satisfaction that they are entitled to an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,620.00, representing eight
hours at $320/hour together with the $60 filing fee. The Court does not award fees for
travel time from the Bay area, but encourages telephonic appearances.

No citation to supporting statute, case law or evidence is provided for the “daily
sanction” for each day that PFLK fails to comply with any order. In the absence of legal
or contractual basis, the Court will strike that provision.

As modified, the Court will sign the formal order submitted.