2010-00070309-CU-NP

Karen Travenia vs. State of California, Attorney General

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Set Aside

Filed By: Travenia, Karen

Plaintiff’s Application to Set Aside the Notice of Settlement, Extension of Administrative
Time Off Until Disbursement of Settlement Award, for Order Setting Aside the
Stipulation for Settlement and to Seal Exhibit to Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED, in its entirety.

The Court declines to consider the belated Amended Ex Parte Application papers filed
by plaintiff on Jan. 30, 2014. No proof of service has been provided and the date of
filing conflicts with the Court’s granting of plaintiff’s request for Ex Parte Order
Shortening Time of Jan. 13, 2014.

Despite the express order of the Court on the Jan. 13, 2014 ex parte application that
the plaintiff’s motion be served and filed not later than Jan. 15, 2014, the papers were
not timely served and filed. This Court has nonetheless considered the late-served
papers.

This case was settled at the Mandatory Settlement Conference held on Dec. 5, 2013.
All parties and their counsel executed a written stipulation, which was approved by
Judge Virga.

Plaintiff now seeks to insert new terms into that settlement – – an extended, unlimited
Administrative Time Off until she receives her settlement check, which was not
negotiated or agreed to. Plaintiff herself has delayed the delivery of her settlement
check by refusing to sign the agreed-to formal settlement agreement.
Plaintiff now disavows terms expressly included in the written stipulation executed on
Dec. 5, 2013 – a release of all claims, and appears to contend that Defendant DOJ
must concede liability.

Although Plaintiff asserts that she was advised that her settlement award would be tax
free, her declaration in support of the ex parte application declares that she “disputed
that assertion by the attorneys”. This contradicts her own contention that this material
term has been omitted from the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff is also judicially estopped from denying the enforceability of the settlement
agreement, as she has already represented to the Court that the case has settled, and
obtained the benefit of the cancellation of her Court-ordered mental exam, the vacation
of the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the vacation of the
trial date. The trial court may therefore apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Blix
Street Records, Inc. v. Cassidy (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 39, 52.

Plaintiff’s request to seal an exhibit to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
denied. C.R.C., Rule 2.550 and 2.551, limits the circumstances and manner in which
court records may be sealed. The court may order that a record be filed under seal
only if it expressly finds that: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the
right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the
record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced
if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No
less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. C.R.C., Rule 2.550.
Plaintiff has failed to show that these elements are satisfied here.

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

2010-00070309-CU-NP

Karen Travenia vs. State of California, Attorney General

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Filed By: Cain-Simon, Mary

Plaintiff Dept. of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant
to C.C.P., sec. 664.6 is GRANTED.

DOJ entered into a stipulated settlement with plaintiff Karen Travenia on Dec. 5, 2013.
By the terms of that agreement, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the
settlement.

After a prior mediation, and a full day of Mandatory Settlement negotiations, the parties
and their counsel reached a settlement agreement. The Judge Pro Tem, Mr. Salenko,
wrote out the agreed upon terms of the settlement agreement by hand, the parties and
their counsel signed the Stipulated Settlement document, which was then reviewed
and signed by Judge Virga. The settlement conference concluded around 6:00 p.m.

The Stipulation for Settlement/settlement agreement is comprehensive. It details that,
in exchange for a payment of $138,500.00, and additional non-monetary
consideration, Plaintiff agreed to file for retirement from the DOJ “forthwith”, so that her retirement would be effective January 15, 2014. The settlement agreement further
provides that Plaintiff was to be placed on paid leave status(Administrative Time Off)
through December 31, then utilize vacation credits until January 15; and that Plaintiff
was to “never seek reemployment with the Calif. DOJ.”

The Stipulation and Order was signed by all parties, and their counsel. Supervising
Settlement Judge Michael Virga reviewed the Stipulation and signed the order at the
end of the document: “Pursuant to the above stipulation, this matter is deemed settled.
The trial date is ordered vacated. The settlement reached by the parties signing this
stipulation is judicially supervised settlement. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the
parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.”

Plaintiff has since discharged her counsel and has refused to sign the formal
Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims contemplated by the written
stipulation signed on Dec. 5, 2013 by all parties, their counsel and the Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to insert new terms (an extended, unlimited Administrative Time Off
until she receives her settlement check) and to disavow terms expressly included in
the written stipulation executed on Dec. 5, 2013 (a release of all claims).

No admissible evidence in support of a C.C.P., sec. 473 motion to set aside the
settlement based on mistake, surprise or excusable neglect has been shown.
Plaintiff’s declaration in support of her ex parte application states that she disputed the
assertion by the attorneys her settlement award would be tax free. That declaration
contradicts her contention in opposition to this motion that it was an essential term of
the settlement which has been omitted.

Defendant has already performed many of the terms of the settlement (allowing
plaintiff to be on ATO, then vacation through Jan. 15, 2014), plaintiff has benefited by
the vacating of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the cancellation of the
Court-ordered mental exam of plaintiff and the vacated trial date. The Court declines to
permit plaintiff to repudiate the written settlement signed by the parties and approved
by the court for settlement of the case. C.C.P., sec. 664.6.

Prevailing party is directed to submit a judgment for the Court’s signature.