ONLINE SERVICES
Pay Traffic Tickets
Pay Criminal Fines
Check Jury Reporting Status
Civil Index
Court Calendars
Tentative Rulings
Tentative Ruling

Judge Donna Geck
Department 4 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Rebeca Ziemniak vs Pyramid Enterprises Inc et al
Case No: 17CV03348
Hearing Date: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Enforce Settlement

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted.

Background: This action arose from a trip and fall incident which occurred on August 5, 2016. Plaintiff alleged that she fell into an open hatch/access portal on Dock A at Cachuma Lake, which was owned and operated by defendants, contending that it was an unsafe condition which had existed for long enough that defendants should have corrected or warned of it.

The parties reached a settlement of the action at the Mandatory Settlement Conference held on December 7, 2018. The parties agreed that, in exchange for a payment of $80,000 to plaintiff, she would dismiss her lawsuit as to all defendants with prejudice. Each side would bear its own costs. The parties stated that counsel would prepare a release that would memorialize the terms of the settlement, which plaintiff would sign and return to defendants, and would provide the dismissal in exchange for the settlement monies within two weeks.

The parties placed the terms of the settlement on the record, and asked the Court retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 for enforcement purposes. The Court conducted an examination of the plaintiff, inquiring whether she understood the terms of the settlement, had an opportunity to discuss the terms with her attorney, and understood that the oral proceeding putting the settlement on the record was intended to be the full, final, and complete settlement of the case under Section 664.6 that was binding on her, and that she could not come back and seek any different type of deal. Plaintiff acknowledged that she understood and was agreeing to the settlement.

After the MSC, plaintiff’s counsel informed defendants that plaintiff refused to sign the release, and she has continued to refuse to sign the release since that time.

This motion to enforce the settlement agreement was filed on December 2, 2019. After the motion was filed, plaintiff’s counsel sought to withdraw as her attorney of record, citing irreconcilable difference which made his continued representation of her impossible. The hearing on the motion to enforce was continued to allow plaintiff sufficient time to address any issues regarding the settlement. Her counsel was permitted to withdraw, and that withdrawal was effective January 28, 2020, when the proof of service of the order relieving him as attorney of record was filed with the court.

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS: The motion is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“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.”

The parties appeared in court, and placed the essential terms of the settlement on the record. Plaintiff acknowledged that she understood the terms of the settlement, and that she understood that the settlement was binding upon her and she could not seek to obtain any other settlement agreement. Even so, she has refused to sign the settlement agreement and release.

The Court finds that, although the parties contemplated the preparation of formal settlement documents, in the form of a settlement agreement and release, that all of the essential terms of the settlement were placed on the record on December 7, 2018. The Court finds further that the settlement of the action is both valid and binding on plaintiff. Her failure and refusal to sign the formal settlement documents does not alter this result.

Consequently, the Court will grant the motion, and order that the settlement, as articulated before the Court on December 7, 2018, be entered as a judgment in this action.