Roden

Roden v. Bergen Brunswig Corp.

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 620·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 549·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 466·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3531·20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 247
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2003G029574California5,672 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

The parties to a hastily drawn Code of Civil Procedure section 99 8 settlement agreement found themselves in litigation concerning its meaning. After numerous motions, hearings and court orders, the defendant filed an appeal from an order interpreting the judgment encapsulating the section 998 settlement agreement. The defendant requests this court to resolve once and for all just one issue out of the portly ball of wax previously at issue in this complex employment litigation: Does the lump sum payment required by the judgment include an amount for retirement benefits, or are continuing retirement benefits to be provided to the plaintiff under the judgment provision requiring the defendant to continue employment benefits? The judgment is clear and unambiguous. Paragraph 2 thereof requires the defendant to continue to provide specified employment benefits, including retirement benefits, to the plaintiff. "Consequently, the amount the defendant is required to pay as a lump sum under paragraph 1 of the judgment does not resolve the defendant’s liability with respect to the plaintiffs retirement benefits. We affirm the postjudgment order.

I

Facts

Donald R. Roden (Roden)…

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.