Robertson

Robertson v. Kou-Pin Chen

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 404·44 Cal. App. 4th 1290·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 264·96 Daily Journal DAR 4856·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2964
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 1996B089875California2,260 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zebrowski, J.

The Robertson plaintiffs sued the Chen defendants following an automobile collision. Shortly before the scheduled trial date, each side filed a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) statement signed by counsel but not by the parties. The Chens’ statement described a defense settlement offer which plaintiffs had previously rejected, stating that the offer would remain open until trial. The plaintiffs later decided to accept the offer. However, the defendants claimed the offer had been revoked before the plaintiffs communicated their acceptance. Plaintiffs moved for enforcement of the offer as a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 (hereafter section 664.6), and the trial court granted the motion.

The Chen defendants appeal, contending that entry of judgment was erroneous because (1) the requirements of section 664.6 had not been satisfied, and (2) the alleged agreement could not otherwise be summarily enforced because a triable issue existed regarding whether an agreement had been formed. We agree and reverse.

1. There was no writing “signed by the parties” settling the case.

Section 664.6 provides that a settlement may be summarily enforced if it is…

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.