Innovative Government vs. Sai K. Vankayala
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Parikh, Manish
Moving party Vankayala’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 664.6 is DENIED.
Plaintiff Sai K. Vankayala filed a claim for his unpaid wages with the Labor Commissioner against defendant Innovative Government, Inc.(“Innovative”). The Labor Commissioner issued an award against Innovative on February 15, 2013, ordering it to pay plaintiff $42,423.60. Innovative filed the instant appeal against the Labor Commissioner’s award and the case was set for trial on July 26, 2013.
On the day of trial the parties reached an oral agreement, which was recited in open court by plaintiff’s counsel. No Court Reporter was present, and the Minute Order issued by Judge Hight reflects that “ Counsel informed the Court that a settlement was reached. Terms of the settlement were recited by Mr. Benjamin. The parties will prepare a written settlement agreement and a stipulation for entry of judgment.” No formal written settlement was executed and presented to the Court for its order. In order to have an enforceable agreement pursuant to Section 664.6, the material terms of the settlement must be explicitly defined. In re Marriage of Assemi, (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 896, 911. A settlement agreement, like any other contract, is unenforceable if the parties fail to agree on a material term or if a material term is not reasonably certain. See, e.g. Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick, (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 811; Civ. Code §1580; Civ. Code §3390(5). In order to enforce an “oral agreement” under Section 664.6, the oral agreement must be placed on the record during a judicially supervised hearing.
Datatronic Sys. Corp. v. Speron, Inc., (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 1168, 1173-1174.
The Declaration of counsel for Vankayana reflects that the terms of the oral agreement, which were recited in Court in front of both parties and counsel, were as follows:
“1. The total amount of the settlement was $9,000.00. The settlement was to be paid in three (3) installments by the end of September 2013. (2) If there was any breach of the Settlement Agreement, then the full value of the amount awarded by the Labor Commissioner in favor of plaintiff would be entered as a Stipulated Judgment against Innovative.(3) Innovative also agreed to provide a corrected W-2 to plaintiff (4) Part of the judgment would be for attorneys’ fees, the amount of which would be later communicated to Innovative. (5) Innovative would not file any lawsuit against plaintiff with regard to his employment at Innovative.(6) The parties agreed to have the Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of settlement.”
In opposition, Nasser Azimi, and authorized representative of Innovative Government, declares that when the terms of the settlement were recited in open court before Judge Hight, they did not include all the terms set forth by plaintiff. Specifically, Azimi declares that the condition that IG would not file any lawsuit against Plaintiff with regard to his employment with IG was not read aloud in Court and he never agreed to this condition. Subsequently, when his counsel Steven Benjamin, sent Azimi the written settlement agreement and associated documents, he reviewed the documents and saw that terms of settlement were included to which he never agreed on July 26, 2013.
On Oct. 31, 2013, Innovative Government’s counsel’s application to withdraw as counsel of record was approved by the Court. The Declaration of Steven Benjamin, filed in support of that motion reflects, in pertinent part, that: “Client’s representative and counsel are in disagreement regarding settlement terms negotiated at the court on July 26, 2013 with Mr. Vankayala and his counsel and placed on the record before Judge Hight.”
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 , supra, at p. 911.
On the record before the Court, a dispute exists as to whether the parties have agreed to all the material terms of the settlement. In the absence of a clear written record, the motion must be denied under CCP 664.6.
Nonetheless, the Court would note that an oral settlement agreement can be enforced just like any other oral contract, as long as it does not violate the statute of frauds. See, e.g., Ryan v. Garcia, (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1009 Whether oral or written, a settlement agreement is enforceable by several means. It can be enforceable by summary judgment, a suit for breach of contract, a suit in equity, (Robertson v. Chen, (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th 1290, 1293) or as an affirmative defense, none of which are implicated in the present motion.
This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court’s web site at
Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
Link to this page