Case Number: VC060569 Hearing Date: May 27, 2014 Dept: SEC

MILLER v. EL RANCHO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
CASE NO.: VC060569
CALENDAR: #3
HEARING: 5/27/14

#3
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff DOMINIQUE MILLER’s Motion to Enforce Terms of Settlement Agreement and Request for Entry of Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff and Defendant EL RANCHO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EL RANCHO”) and Defendant DONNA KOBZEFF all agree that they entered into a settlement agreement at a Mandatory Settlement Conference which was held on March 25, 2013. (Motion, p. 3; EL RANCHO Opp., p. 2; KOBZEFF Opp., p. 2.) However, what the parties cannot seem to agree on are the terms of that settlement agreement. Nor has Plaintiff provided reliable evidence of those terms.

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6: “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.”

Here, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the settlement agreement made orally before the Court on March 25, 2013. Plaintiff claims that the settlement agreement required Co-Defendants to pay Plaintiff the total sum of $30,000 with the only condition of settlement (as stated in the Release) being that Plaintiff obtain a Court approved minor’s compromise. (Motion, p. 3.)

However, EL RANCHO claims that the settlement agreement required (1) KOBZEFF retire from EL RANCHO; (2) KOBZEFF sign a waiver of claims against EL RANCHO to effectuate her retirement; and (3) EL RANCHO to pay $30,000 to Plaintiff after completion of the first two conditions. (EL RANCHO Opp., p. 2.)

Moreover, KOBZEFF claims that the settlement agreement required EL RANCHO to pay Plaintiff $30,000 subject to court approval given that she is a minor and has special needs, that EL RANCHO (not Plaintiff) demanded KOBZEFF retire, and that the settlement terms were between Plaintiff and EL RANCHO. (KOBZEFF Opp., p. 2.)

Finally, the minute order from the MSC on March 25, 2013 only states: “Counsel for defendant El Rancho Unified School District reported telephonically on 3/22/13 that the case has settled.”

In deciding whether to enforce settlement agreements under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, judges cannot address ambiguities in material terms by filling in the gaps, or adjudicate differences between the parties, as distinguished from just settling or interpreting the settlement provisions. Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460.

Essentially, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement when the Court has no evidence of the actual terms of the agreement. Plaintiff has presented no record from the 3/25/13 MSC to show that the terms are what Plaintiff is claiming they are. Those terms also conflict with each recollection of the Co-Defendants. In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to enforce the terms of the Release she executed, it has not been signed by the other parties and is therefore unenforceable against them.

Finally, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied as Plaintiff did not specify any legal authority in her Motion, and even if the Court were to agree that sanctions were available pursuant to CCP § 128.5, Plaintiff has not shown how either Defendant is acting with bad faith, tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.