Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement 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 or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

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

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Moving party has not stated an address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 53 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

Defendants Samuel Gene Dana and Denise G. McCarney’s (“Defendants”) motion to enforce settlement, or in the alternative, for an order to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is GRANTED.

On May 24, 2024, Defendants filed an unauthorized supplement to the reply. On the same day, Plaintiff Delma Jrmar Jefferson (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to the supplement, which included an “Affidavit of Truth and Fact”. The Court declines to consider Defendant’s supplement and Plaintiff’s opposition to the supplement as they are not allowed pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Court, and the parties did not obtain leave of Court for the filings.

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 attended a private mediation which resulted in a written stipulation for settlement that was signed by the parties (“Agreement”). (Declaration of Mona L. Bauer (“Bauer Decl.”), Exhibit A.) The Agreement states that it may be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Ibid.) It recites that Defendants will pay Plaintiff $150,000 in exchange for Plaintiff’s release and dismissal with prejudice of Defendants. (Ibid.)

The Agreement does not include a timeframe in which the settlement payment will be made, and it contemplates that the parties will prepare a formal settlement agreement to follow at a later date. (Ibid.) 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.)

Defendants sent the settlement check along with a request for dismissal as to the entire action on December 4, 2024, and it was received by Plaintiff on December 5th. (Bauer Decl., ¶8, Exhibit B.) In early January, Defendants learned that Plaintiff intended to amend his complaint to name new defendants. (Id., ¶10.) After realizing that Plaintiff did not intend to dismiss his entire action, Defendants prepared and sent a new request for

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 to Enforce Settlement in Department 53

dismissal as to Defendants only. (Id., ¶11.) Plaintiff has not yet dismissed the action as to Defendants. Plaintiff has also filed a separate motion to rescind the Agreement.

Plaintiff, appearing in pro per, opposes on the grounds that the Agreement is unfair and unconscionable because he only agreed to release Defendants, not to dismiss his entire action. He further argues Defendants were required to make the settlement payment at the same time the Agreement was signed, and therefore, because payment was issued later, the Agreement is invalid. Plaintiff’s 57-page opposition does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, which limits responding memorandum to 15 pages. The Court need not consider arguments raised after page 15. However, it observes that the remainder of Plaintiff’s opposition appears to simply expand on these primary arguments.

Legal Standard

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.”

Thus, section 664.6 allows the Court, upon motion, to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement where the parties stipulated to the settlement. The Court’s inquiry in ruling on a motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is generally limited to a determination of whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement, and the material terms thereof. (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. w. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn.4; see also Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.) Where entitlement to relief under section 664.6 is established, the trial court may “enter a formal judgment setting forth all of the material settlement terms that have yet to be fully performed.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185.)

A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565.) “Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment [Citations], nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810 (emphasis original).) Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or

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 to Enforce Settlement in Department 53

whether they are not. (Viejo Bancorp, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 209, fn. 4.)

Discussion

The Court concludes that the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement on November 7, 2023. Defendants have provided evidence that they have paid the agreed upon settlement amount. The Agreement does not provide a timeframe for the payment of the settlement funds. The Court notes that the absence of a timeframe for payment is moot as payment has already been tendered and Defendants have thereby performed. Additionally, the Court notes that the Agreement releases only Defendants Dana and McCarney. Therefore, Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the dismissal of his remaining causes of action against other defendants are unfounded. The only remaining material term of the Agreement is the dismissal of Defendants with prejudice and the judgment need only effectuate the remaining material terms that have not yet been performed. (See Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, or in the alternative, to enter judgment is GRANTED. The Court will enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to Defendants Dana and McCarney only.

Defendants’ counsel shall prepare a formal order and a proposed judgment for the Court’s signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.