2012-00134538-CU-PA

Clarence Lyons vs. County of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreements

Filed By:  Wieckowski, Carol A.

Judge Cadei has reviewed the following matter and determined that it does not
disqualify him from hearing cases involving the County of Sacramento.  This
information is provided to allow all parties appearing before him on any matter
involving the County of Sacramento as a party to be fully informed in advance of
any hearing as to his connection with this entity.

Judge Cadei is married to Toni J. Moore, Executive Director of the First 5
Sacramento  Commission which is an entity that is part of the County of
Sacramento.  First 5 California and 58 First 5 County Commissions were created
by statewide voter initiative passed in 1998. First 5 is separately funded out of
special tobacco tax proceeds and is directed to support programs for children.
As such the Commission is not dependent on the general funds of Sacramento
County for its operations. The Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County does
review and approve its yearly budgets and long-term plans.

Defendants County of Sacramento and Dmitry Kruts’ motion to compel enforcement of
settlement agreements (CCP 664.6) is ruled upon as follows.

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on October 27,
2011.  On March 14, 2014, Plaintiffs, along with one of their counsel of record,
attended a mediation before Nicholas K. Lowe, Esq.  At the end of the mediation, the
parties signed settlement agreements whereby Plaintiffs agreed to execute a general
Release of all Claims and to sign a request for dismissal with prejudice.  The
settlements agreements, however, contained the incorrect date of loss, October 17,
2011.

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court may refuse to enforce the
settlement agreements because the agreements are unjust.  They argue that  because
the date of loss is incorrect, the contracts are void.  They further argue that they felt
pressured to sign the agreements, thus, the agreements are unenforceable.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments. Here, the minor typographical
error does not make the agreements unjust or void.  Indeed, it is clear that all the
parties were aware of the date of the incident and there was a meeting of the minds as
to the terms of the settlement agreements.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument that they
were pressured to sign the settlements is unavailing.  As an initial matter, Plaintiffs do
not proffer their declarations attesting to this fact.  More importantly, Plaintiffs were
represented by counsel at the mediation and their counsel signed the agreements.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.