 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tejeda v. Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital1/30/2002
authority to adjudicate any dispute with respect to the terms of a settlement, or any other dispute. The court further concluded that entry of judgment was a ministerial act and that the court was required to enter judgment when a purported acceptance was filed.
After hearing from the parties, the court determined that, pursuant to the offer of settlement, the appropriate form of judgment was a dismissal with prejudice. Thus, the court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice in each action.
At this point, defendants have not paid the settlement sums to plaintiffs and are not subject to any order or judgment compelling them to do so. And the trial court has not retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement offers.
DISCUSSION
Settlements are favored as a matter of public policy in this state. (Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 266, 270.) When a party believes that a settlement has been reached, there are a number of procedural mechanisms by which the settlement may be enforced. These include a motion for summary judgment, a separate suit in equity, or amendment of the pleadings to set forth the settlement as an affirmative defense. (Nicholson v. Barab (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1671, 1681.)
In section 664.6, the Legislature provided an expeditious statutory procedure for the enforcement of certain settlement agreements. When a settlement qualifies for expeditious enforcement pursuant to section 664.6, the trial court may enter an order approving the settlement on motion of an affected party, and may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until its terms are fully performed. The court may proceed under section 664.6 "even when issues relating to the binding nature or terms of the settlement are in dispute, because, [under section 664.6] the trial court is empowered to resolve these disputed issues and ultimately determine whether the parties reached a binding mutual accord as to the material terms." (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905.)
The summary enforcement procedures of section 664.6 are limited to settlements that meet certain requirements which "minimize the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the [agreement] or its effect." (In re Marriage of Assemi, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 905.) These include the requirement that the settlement be in writing and signed by the parties, or be made orally on the record before the court. (Ibid.)
Section 664.6 is not exclusive. It does not invalidate settlements that do not qualify for its expeditious enforcement mechanism, and it does not preclude a litigant from pursuing traditional means of enforcing a settlement agreement. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586, fn. 5; Nicholson v. Barab, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1681.) Settlement agreements that are not enforceable under section 664.6 are governed by the legal principles applicable to contracts in general. (Nicholson v. Barab, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 1681.)
In contrast to section 664.6, section 998 is not an enforcement statute. It is intended to encourage the settlement of litigation. (Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 270.) It proceeds by providing that the costs otherwise payable may be withheld or augmented where a party refuses a reasonable settlement offer and fails to obtain a more favorable result at trial. (Ibid.; see § 998, subd. (a).)
Pursuant to section 998, either party may make an offer in writing to allow judgment to be taken or an award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions stated at that time. (§ 998, subd. (b).) "If the offer is accepted, the offe
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.
|
|