Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Rescind Stipulated Settlement in Department 36

177 Cal.App.2d 744, 750.)

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.

In opposition, Defendants argue the Agreement is valid and enforceable, because Plaintiff has not shown that he was unduly influenced during the mediation. Defendants state Plaintiff 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. As a result, Defendants argue there is no evidence that they attempted to deceive Plaintiff during the mediation. Defendants further argue Plaintiff’s comments and criticisms of the mediator are self-serving, improper, and such accusations are insufficient grounds on which to rescind the agreement.

Defendants further contend Plaintiff is attempting to rescind the settlement because he discovered that a different party received a higher settlement amount for her claims. Next, Defendants argue that although the Agreement clearly states Plaintiff is responsible for satisfying all liens that exist against his settlement, Plaintiff attempted to shift the burden of paying his medical liens to Defendants during post-settlement communications, and Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s proposed revisions to the terms of the Agreement. (Opposition 4:4-16; Declaration of Delma Jrmar Jefferson in support of Motion to Rescind, ¶8-11, Exhibit 9.).

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 Dana and McCarney only upon realizing Plaintiff intended to maintain his action against other parties. (Declaration of Wilma J. Gray, ¶¶8-12, Exhibits B and C.)

Here, 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 Dana and McCarney pursuant to the terms of 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Rescind Stipulated Settlement in Department 36

agreed to release and dismiss Defendants Dana and McCarney in exchange for the agreed upon settlement amount. This appears to be what Plaintiff believed he 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.)

NOTICE:

This tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its request for hearing.

The parties may appear remotely through the use of Zoom. The parties may join the Zoom session by audio and/or video through the link/telephone number which can be obtained by contacting the clerk of the court at dept36@saccourt.ca.gov or (916) 874- 7661 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled hearing. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes per side.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Rescind Stipulated Settlement in Department 36

reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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 will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.