CIV536208 JILA VAUGHAN, ET AL. VS. PARVIZ DARABI

EMILIA VAUGHAN JILA VAUGHAN
ALBERT M.T FINCH ALBERT M.T FINCH

PLAINTIFFS JILA VAUGHAN, STEWART VAUGHAN AND EMILIA VAUGHAN AND CROSS— DEFENDANTS ANNEMARIE VAUGHAN, KRISTOFER BREKKE, AND WILLIAM VAUGHAN’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TENTATIVE RULING:

A. Preliminary Notes on Procedure.

Plaintiffs applied ex parte on April 16, 2019, for an order permitting the present motion to be sealed. The Court did not rule on that application, because the general practice is to hear a motion to seal concurrently with the motion that is the subject of that request. Plaintiffs believed that the Court was indicating that no order to seal was required, when the Court was actually explaining that an ex parte order was not necessary and that the motion to seal could be calendared with the present motion to enforce settlement.

There is no order permitting the sealing of documents related to this motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Moving Declaration of Finch and all of Defendant’s Opposing papers, which are merely lodged, are not part of the record. The Court he Court’s tentative ruling is based on only the papers on file, but not those that are merely lodged.

B. The Motion to Enforce Settlement Is Denied.

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement agreement is denied.

The judicially-supervised settlement requires Defendant to pay $450,000 to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs to dismiss this action upon payment. The agreement also calls for “additional” settlement terms to be reflected in a separate settlement agreement. (The terms of the judicial settlement are redacted in the supporting Declaration of Finch. The Court cites the settlement terms from the actual original judicial settlement, which was filed in unredacted form, on October 16, 2018.)

Plaintiffs contend that the Court may enforce Defendant’s payment obligation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 without the parties’ having signed the separate settlement agreement; Defendant contends that without a signed separate agreement, enforcement under section 664.6 is not permissible.

The Court does not decide whether enforcement of the October 16, 2018, agreement is possible without an executed separate settlement agreement. Even if the present motion could be decided in the absence of an executed separate agreement, the Court cannot grant the motion. The signed judicially supervised settlement provides that Defendant must fulfill his payment obligation “within 30 days of Plaintiffs’ et al.’s execution of the separate settlement agreement.”

Since Plaintiffs have not executed the separate agreement, the 30 day period for Defendant’s payment has not arisen. To order that Defendant fulfill his payment obligation before the separate agreement is signed, the Court would have to rewrite the agreement concerning the timing of Defendant’s payment, which the Court may not do. Even Plaintiffs’ proposed order does not direct Defendant to make the settlement payment. It directs only that Plaintiffs shall dismiss the action after Defendant makes payment. (Proposed Order at 2:6-16, lodged April 16, 2019.) If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.