 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tejeda v. Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital1/30/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
These consolidated appeals present identical issues. In each case, defendants Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital and Charles Norton purported to make, and plaintiffs Imelda Tejeda and Patricia Spencer purported to accept, offers of settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Defendants then refused to perform pursuant to the settlement agreements, asserting the acceptances were in fact counteroffers rather than valid acceptances. On plaintiffs' motions to enforce the settlements, the trial court declined to enter orders compelling defendants to make payment or otherwise perform pursuant to the settlement agreements, but entered orders of dismissal with prejudice. We agree with plaintiffs that the trial court erred. Accordingly, we shall reverse the orders of dismissal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
When this litigation arose, defendant Norton was the chief executive officer and administrator of defendant Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff Tejeda was employed by the hospital as a phlebotomist. Plaintiff Spencer was a certified healthy families program specialist employed by the hospital as supervisor of the family care center. Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to instances of sexual battery and sexual harassment by Norton. On September 27, 1999, plaintiffs filed separate civil actions for damages against the hospital and Norton based upon these allegations.
On April 6, 2000, defendants served plaintiffs with identical offers to compromise pursuant to section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Further section references are to this code unless otherwise specified.) Defendants offered to pay each plaintiff $152,500 in full settlement and in exchange for dismissals with prejudice; the execution and transmittal of general releases, including standard confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses; and the parties bearing their own costs and attorney fees.
On April 19, 2000, plaintiffs' attorney filed a notice of acceptance, together with a copy of the offer, in each action. (ยง 998, subd. (b)(1).) However, on April 28, 2000, in each action, defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of their offers. Defendants characterized each of the purported acceptances as a rejection and counteroffer.
Plaintiffs then moved to enforce the alleged settlements. In opposition, defendants took issue with plaintiffs' purported acceptances in several respects. First, defendants said that (1) the requirement of absolute confidentiality was particularly important to them and this had been communicated to plaintiffs; and (2) in the written releases plaintiffs executed, they agreed to keep the terms and amount of settlement confidential "except to the extent that the terms and amount are contained in public records"; nevertheless (3) by filing an acceptance and copy of the settlement offer with the court, plaintiffs placed the amount and terms of the settlement in the public record. Second, defendants asserted that in their general releases plaintiffs did not waive the provisions of Civil Code section 1542, and thus did not waive unknown claims. Third, plaintiffs did not file requests for dismissal with the court, but rather provided signed requests for dismissal to defendants with authorization to file them upon payment of the settlement sums.
The trial court concluded that, under section 998, it lacked
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|