Case Number: SC105392    Hearing Date: September 12, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

SEPT. 12, 2014 CALENDAR No: 1

SC105392 — CHAISSON v. CUPP, et al.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT (CCP 664.6)

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff moves to enforce a written settlement negotiated by Judge Biderman. The parties dispute the terms of the settlement. The Court will deny the motion.

Section 664.6 provides in relevant part: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court [ … ], for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” In effect, this section establishes “a summary, expedited procedure to enforce settlement agreements when certain requirements that decrease the likelihood of misunderstanding are met.” Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 585.

In ruling on a motion to enforce a settlement pursuant to section 664.6, the trial court may act as a finder of fact, and it may rely on documentary evidence, oral testimony, or other admissible evidence. Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533-1534.

“A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.” Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810. “California law is clear that there is no contract until there has been a meeting of the minds on all material points.” Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1430 (internal quotations omitted). “‘The existence of mutual consent is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.’ [Citation.] … The parties’ outward manifestations must show that the parties all agreed ‘upon the same thing in the same sense.’ (Civ.Code, § 1580.) If there is no evidence establishing the manifestation of assent to the ‘same thing’ by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract and no contract formation. (Civ.Code, §§ 1550, 1565 & 1580.)” Weddington, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at 811; see also, e.g., T.M. Cobb, Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 282. In other words, courts look to “the reasonable meaning of [the parties’] words and acts, and not their unexpressed intentions or understandings.” Alexander v. Codemasters Group, Ltd.(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 129, 141.

The motion (which lacks any discussion of the background of this action) is confusing in numerous respects. In any event, the Court agrees with the various arguments posited in the opposition brief. Perhaps Plaintiff agreed with them as well – she failed to file a reply brief. Shee thus conceded the arguments, whether or not she intended to do so. See, e.g., Gagosian v. Burdick’s Television and Appliances (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 316, 318 (“It is not the Court’s function to act as Plaintiff’s “back-up” counsel. Indeed: “There is neither reason nor justification for compelling a trial judge to act as a sort of advisory or ‘backup’ counsel”).

Motion is denied with prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to execute the release attached as Exhibit D to the opposition brief and to transmit the original executed copy to defense counsel on or before September 19, 2014.

NOTICE

Defendant shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312.