Category: Settlement Agreements

Settlement Agreements: Civil Code Section 1668 Negates Contractual Clause Eliminating Liability For Fraud When Tortious Elements Are In The Past

November 15, 2018 · Settlement Agreements

But Civil Code Section 1668 Does Negate Contractual Clause Exempting Party From Responsibility When Elements Of Tort Are Concurrent Or Future Events When Contract Is Signed.     Until Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.App.2d 729 (1963) and Orlando v. Berkeley, 220 Cal.App.2d 224 (1963) came along, sellers attempted to remove liability for the condition of […]

CCP 664.6 AND FRCP 41(a): Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce Settlement Agreement In Federal And California State Courts

Because Federal Courts Are Courts Of Limited Jurisdiction, The Procedures Differ.         We posted on December 4, 2017, about Sayta v. Chu, A148823 (1/5 11/29/17) (published), an opinion that "offers an object lesson on the requirements to invoke [Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.] section 664.6 and the consequences of failure to comply with those […]

Settlement Agreements: Party Seeking To Invoke CCP 664 To Enforce Settlement Did Not Preserve Court’s Jurisdiction Simply By Putting The Request In A Confidential Settlement Agreement

December 4, 2017 · Settlement Agreements

If You Want The Court To Retain Jurisdiction, Ask The Court.      "This case offers an object lesson on the requirements to invoke section 664.6 and the consequences of failure to comply with those requirements."  Sayta v. Chu, A148823 (1/5  11/29/17) (Bruiniers, Jones, Simons).     Plaintiff/Apppellant Sayta settled a tenant dispute with the […]

Settlement Agreements/Pending Cases: CCA 4/3 Vitatech Opinion Is Now Certified For Publication

An Unenforceable Settlement: Vitatech Held Stipulation To Enter Judgment For $300K After Defendant Defaults On One-Time Payment of $75K Is An Unenforceable Penalty.            On October 3, 2017, I posted about Vitatech International, Inc. v. Sporn,  G053477, a Fourth District, Division Three opinion.  Unpublished at the time, the case was certified for publication on October 30, […]

Settlements: Stipulation To Enter Judgment For $300K After Defendant Defaults On One-Time Payment of $75K Is An Unenforceable Penalty

October 3, 2017 · Settlement Agreements

Admission Of Liability For Underlying Claims Or For Damages Alleged Might Have Made A Difference.         Stipulations to enter judgment upon default for an amount that is larger than an agreed-upon settlement payment continue to confound judges, attorneys, and parties.  In Vitatech International, Inc. v. Sporn, G053477 (4/3  9/29/17) (Aronson, Bedsworth, Ikola) (unpublished), the […]

Settlement Agreements: Order Granting Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement Is Affirmed Where Appellant Dwells On Merits Of Underlying Action

September 28, 2017 · Settlement Agreements

In Pro Per Appellant Struggled With Appeals Process.         Plainitff Denardo, in propria persona, sued Defendant Givens for damages in a dispute arising from a real estate transaction.  With the assistance of counsel, Givens and Denardo mediated their dispute and entered into a written settlement agreement.  Denardo received an initial settlement payment, but did […]

Consumers/Fees/Settlement Agreements: Defendants Contesting Fee Award Lose On Appeal Because In Settlement Agreement, They Agreed To Fee Entitlement

Reasonableness Of Award Did Not Need To Be Addressed, Because Entitlement, Which Parties Agreed To, Was The Real Issue.         Once a case is settled, some issues need not be litigated, even though the parties may want to do so.  Such was the case in Medina v. South Coast Car Company, Inc., D069820 (4/1  […]

Settlement Agreements: 4/2 CCA Holds Trial Court Can Grant Equitable Remedies In Motion Brought Under CCP Section 664.6 To Enforce Settlement Agreement

September 8, 2017 · Settlement Agreements

Trial Court Erred By Ruling It Could Not Grant Equitable Remedies In Motion Under Section 664.6.         Plaintiff Mathis settled with defendants by agreeing to purchase property from defendants for $1M, with escrow to close in 120 days.  The trial court dismissed the underlying case, while retaining jurisdiction under that convenient device, Cal. Code of […]