2011-00111045-CU-BC

Charles Coate vs. Steven S. Samra

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Filed By: Rimmer, Kirk S.

If oral argument is requested, it shall be heard at the end of the D. 53 2:00pm calendar on Monday, February 26, 2018.

Plaintiff Charles Coate’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 664.6 is unopposed but is DENIED.

On March 16, 2017, the parties and their counsel attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference in this Court. The Minute Order filed that date reflected that the “Case settled partially as to Dollar amt. Certain other language on confidentiality and penalty for non-payment to be agreed upon by lawyers KEEP ON CALENDAR”. [Emphasis in the original] Trial was estimated to take five days, and was set for April 4, 2017.

The written Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the moving papers is only signed by plaintiff. The notary public made a notation that only the signature of Coate was notarized. The space for the signature of the defendant Steven S. Samra is blank.

On April 3, 3017, moving party plaintiff filed an unconditional Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, Request for Dismissal with prejudiced as to the entire action of all parties and all causes of action, subject to court retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement.

Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 provides: “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.”

The California Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require the “parties” to stipulate in writing or orally before the court that they have settled the case. The litigants’ direct participation tends to ensure that the settlement is the result of their mature reflection and deliberate assent. This protects the parties against hasty and improvident settlement agreements by impressing upon them the seriousness and finality of the decision to settle, and minimizes the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the settlement. It also protects parties from impairment of their substantial rights without their knowledge and consent. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 585.)

In this case, there is no signature by the defendant on the proffered settlement agreement. Only plaintiff appears to have signed the Settlement and unilaterally notified the Court that the entire case was settled and dismissed the entire action with prejudice.

The motion is denied.