Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Rescind Stipulated for Settlement Agreement in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Rescind Stipulated for Settlement Agreement in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

In pro per Plaintiff Delma Jrmar Jefferson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to rescind stipulation for settlement is DENIED.

Background

This is a personal injury action arising from a car accident that occurred on September 27, 2020. On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants Samuel Dana and Denise McCarney (“Defendants”) attended a private mediation which resulted in a written stipulation for settlement that was signed by the parties (“Agreement”). (Declaration of Delma Jrmar Jefferson (“Jefferson Decl.”), ¶¶8-12, Exhibit A.) The Agreement states that it may be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Jefferson Decl., Exhibit A.) The Agreement states in relevant part:

USAA, on behalf of defendants Samuel Dana and Denise McCamey will pay plaintiff Jrmar Jefferson the total sum of $150,000.00 in complete and total settlement of his claims for personal injury, damage and harm caused by the automobile accident that occurred on September 27, 2020. Mr. Jefferson will dismiss his complaint with prejudice and will release said defendants Dana and McCarney from all further liability for injury, damage and harm (whether known or unknown, and whether past, present or future). Mr. Jefferson will satisfy all liens that exist against this settlement. Each side to bear his/their own attorney fees and costs.

The Agreement does not include a timeframe in which the settlement payment will be made. (Ibid.) The Court notes that the absence of such deadline is moot as Defendants have already tendered payment. The Agreement’s release and dismissal provisions are limited to “Samuel Dana and Denise McCarney.” It does not extend to any other defendants in the action. (Ibid.)

Discussion

A party may seek to rescind a stipulated settlement agreement, “upon timely application to the court and a hearing made on affidavits.” (Roth v. Morton's Chefs Services, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 380, 385.) “[T]he court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may set aside a stipulation entered into through inadvertence, excusable neglect, fraud,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Rescind Stipulated for Settlement Agreement in Department 53

mistake of fact or law, where the facts stipulated have changed or there has been a change in the underlying conditions that could not have been anticipated, or where special circumstances exist rendering it unjust to enforce the stipulation.” (Los Angeles City School Dist. of Los Angeles County v. Landier Management Co. (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 744, 750.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to rescind the Agreement reached by stipulation pursuant to Civil Code section 1689, subdivision (b), arguing that the Agreement was obtained through duress, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. Plaintiff primarily argues in his moving papers that the Agreement is invalid because Plaintiff only agreed to release and dismiss Defendants, but Defendants are using the Agreement to force him to dismiss his entire action, including claims against other parties. Plaintiff also appears to contend the amount of the settlement payment is insufficient to fully compensate him for his injuries. It is unclear from the moving papers why the negotiated settlement amount is insufficient or what would be a sufficient amount, but in any event, such an argument would not alter the outcome of this motion.

In opposition, Defendants argue the Agreement is valid and enforceable. Defendants contend Plaintiff has not shown that he was unduly influenced during the mediation because he voluntarily attended the mediation in person, he was placed into a separate room by the mediator, and Plaintiff’s conversations with the mediator were kept confidential. Defendants further argue Plaintiff’s comments and criticisms of the mediator are improper and without basis in fact. Defendants contend Plaintiff is attempting to rescind the settlement because he discovered that a different party received a higher settlement for her claims.

Defendants further argue Plaintiff is attempting to shift the burden of paying his medical liens to Defendants even though the Agreement clearly allocates those costs to Plaintiff. Finally, Defendants admit that they initially sent Plaintiff a dismissal of his entire action, but they contend they sent Plaintiff a revised dismissal as to Defendants only upon realizing Plaintiff intended to maintain his action against other parties. (Declaration of Wilma J. Gray, ¶¶8-12, Exhibits B and C.)

Plaintiff has not shown that his consent was “given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party.” (Civ. Code §1689, subd. (b)(1).) Instead, it appears that he seeks to rescind the Agreement based on a mistaken belief that in dismissing Defendants per the Agreement he will also have to dismiss his entire action, including claims against defendants who are not parties to the instant motion. This is not the case. Per the Agreement, Plaintiff has only agreed to release and dismiss Defendants, again, meaning only Dana and McCarney. This is exactly what Plaintiff states he believed he

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Rescind Stipulated for Settlement Agreement in Department 53

was agreeing to at the mediation according to his moving papers.

To the extent Plaintiff contends that he was improperly pressured by the mediator to sign the Agreement, Plaintiff has not shown that the mediator was a contracting party to the Agreement or was jointly interested with Defendants. Defendants were in a separate room and were unaware of the details of Plaintiff’s discussion with the mediator. Plaintiff was required to show that Defendants themselves knew of or engaged in duress, fraud, or undue influence in order to rescind the contract pursuant to Civil Code section 1689. (Fettig v. Hilton Garden Inns Management LLC (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 264, 265–266 [“duress by a third person cannot void a contract when the other contracting party did not know about the duress and relied in good faith”]; see also, e.g., Chan v. Lund (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1179.)

To the extent Plaintiff contends the settlement amount he agreed to is insufficient, this is not a legally valid reason to rescind the contract. Plaintiff provides no legal authority that supports his argument that the Agreement may be invalidated on this basis alone.

Disposition

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)