Padilla

Murphy v. Padilla

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 112·42 Cal. App. 4th 707·49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 722·96 Daily Journal DAR 1577·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 974
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 9, 1996H013695California3,326 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

Appellant Patricia Padilla challenges an order of the trial court enforcing an alleged oral settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The trial court’s judgment enforcing the alleged settlement disposes of all issues in the underlying suit brought by respondents, David and Maryanne Murphy, over a disputed easement held by appellant.

Appellant raises the following questions: 1) whether an oral stipulation made during mediation referenced pursuant to section 638 is “before the court” within the meaning of section 664.6; 2) whether an alleged settlement agreement entered into by an attorney on behalf of his or her client is binding without the client’s express consent; and 3) whether oral or written agreements made during the course of mediation are admissible to prove settlement without offending Evidence Code section 1152.5.

We first conclude that the underlying proceeding was not properly referenced pursuant to section 638 and thus at most the parties participated in a voluntary, nonbinding mediation. Next, we find that an oral stipulation before a court-referenced mediator, who lacks adjudicative authority to render a binding decision,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.