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

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.)