 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tejeda v. Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital1/30/2002
e not paid the sums that they offered in settlement of the litigation, and have made it perfectly clear that they refuse, and will continue to refuse, to make payment.
By entering orders of dismissal with prejudice, the trial court effectively enforced the settlements against plaintiffs, but without taking any steps to ensure that they will receive performance of defendants' obligations. This was error. (See Civ. Code, ยง 3386; Bleecher v. Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d 345, 353.) When the trial court determined that it lacked authority to enforce the settlement under section 998, it should have refused to enter any judgment or order under that section and left the parties to their existing remedies with respect to the enforcement of settlements.
While we agree that the trial court erred in entering orders of dismissal with prejudice, we reject plaintiffs' contention that they are entitled to judgments for the settlement proceeds. To obtain enforcement of an alleged settlement, a party must pursue an appropriate enforcement procedure, which would include, where applicable, a motion under section 664.6. (Saba v. Crater, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 153-154.) However, in these cases, the alleged settlements did not qualify for enforcement pursuant to section 664.6 because they were not signed by the parties themselves. (See Levy v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 586.) This means plaintiffs are left with their traditional remedies, such as motions for summary judgment, amendment of the pleadings, or separate actions or equity, to seek enforcement of the alleged settlements. Plaintiffs did not pursue any of these remedies, and neither the trial court nor this court is in a position to determine whether the alleged settlements should be enforced.
Finally, we reject defendants' argument that plaintiffs are estopped from complaining of the entry of orders of dismissal. It is readily apparent that defendants are not entitled to the benefits of settlement unless they are willing, or may be compelled, to perform their obligations. Plaintiffs' attempts to enforce the alleged settlements through motion procedures were in error, but they at all times sought orders compelling defendants to fulfill their part of the alleged settlements. Plaintiffs were willing to accept dismissals if, but only if, defendants paid or were ordered to pay the settlement sums. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs are not estopped to complain of the entry of orders of dismissal without enforcement of the settlements in their favor. (See Harris v. Spinali Auto Sales, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 215, 217-218.)
DISPOSITION
The orders of dismissal are reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We concur:
NICHOLSON, J.
HULL, J.
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.
|
|