Case Number: GC049943    Hearing Date: September 12, 2014    Dept: B

11. GC049943
BRETT F. STUART, et al vs. ROTARY TECHNOLOGIES, CORP
Motion for Entry of Judgment

This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants have failed to repay a large number of loans made by the original trustee, E. Handley Stuart Jr., to the Defendants. No trial is set because the parties appeared on the trial date of July 14, 2014 and entered a stipulation to a settlement into the record. The case was dismissed on August 6, 2014.

This hearing concerns the Plaintiffs’ motion to enter a judgment pursuant to the settlement. Under CCP section 664.6, the Court may enforce a settlement agreement. Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 810. In order to be enforceable pursuant to the summary procedures of section 664.6, a settlement agreement must either be entered into orally before a court or must be in writing and signed by the parties. Id.

The Plaintiffs provide a copy of the written settlement agreement in exhibit A to the declaration of the Plaintiffs’ attorney, Frank Cialone. A review of the settlement agreement reveals that the parties each signed the written agreement. Further, Mr. Cialone states that this written agreement was read into the record on July 14, 2014 and that the parties orally stipulated to the settlement. A copy of the transcript for the July 14, 2014 hearing is attached as exhibit B.
The parties agreed to the following in the settlement agreement:

1) the Defendants would pay $3,000,000 on or before July 14, 2016, which could be extended to July 14, 2017 if the Defendants pay an additional amount of $250,000 by July 14, 2015;
2) the Defendants will provide a deed of trust on the property at 86 S. La Senda Drive, Laguna Beach; and
3) the Defendants will not encumber the property at 1250 Lorain Road, San Marino. Payment is due immediately if the property is sold.

Further, the transcript of the oral recitation for settlement placed on the record before the Court on July 14, 2014 contains a release of all claims, both known and unknown by all the parties. The settlement itself set forth grounds for accelerating payments for the court to enforce the settlement. The parties requested that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under CCP section 664.6.

The parties thereafter entered into a written settlement agreement that appears not to have included all the terms of the settlement, e.g. the mutual releases.

Plaintiff now seeks to have the Court enter the written settlement as a judgment pursuant to §664.6.

The Defendants filed opposition papers to argue that if there has not been a breach of the settlement agreement, and the parties did not contemplate or intend that a judgment would be entered. Indeed the transcript demonstrated that the parties contemplated that the plaintiff would file a dismissal pursuant to the settlement. At the hearing the court said:

“Why don’t I put on calendar for August 19 as an O.S.C.
Re Dismissal and any time before that, if you file the
Written settlement agreement, and I sign it and you’ve
Dismissed the action, you don’t need to appear.”

Counsel for plaintiff responded; “That’s fine, your honor.”[ The Court records show that the August 19th hearing was placed off calendar on the basis of “dismissal filed.” There is no record of the dismissal.]

Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties did not intend judgment for Plaintiff to be entered. A settlement agreement is simply a contract and contracts must be enforced according to the “mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.” Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 811. The retention of the trial court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is not plenary supervisory powers over the parties, but only the power to enforce, according to its terms, the contract they negotiated amongst themselves. Further, this may only happen upon motion filed by either party.
Here the court concludes that the mutual intent of the parties when they entered into the settlement was not to enter a judgment under CCP section 664.6 and that a enforcement would be sought only if there was a breach of the terms of the agreement. This is further evidenced by the release of claims, each agreed to.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s motion to enter judgment pursuant to C.C,.P.§ 664.6. On the following grounds: 1) the proposed stipulation does not recite all the terms of the parties; 22) the parties did not intend to reduce the settlement to judgment; and 3) the releases entered into on the record evidences that no judgment was intended.
At the hearing, the Court will consider whether, pursuant to the settlement and the discussion with Court on the record when the settlement was recited, this matter should be dismissed with prejudice.