Diaz

Diaz v. May

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 4th 1268·19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 409·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 522·93 Daily Journal DAR 6101·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3556
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 1993A057672California2,712 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

Teresa Diaz brought suit for medical malpractice against Samuel Merritt Hospital (Hospital) and several physicians (Doctors). Diaz appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to the terms of a settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) She contends section 664.6 was inapplicable because the written settlement on which the court based its judgment was signed only by Diaz’s attorney (by Ills secretary), and not by Diaz personally. We conclude section 664.6 does not necessarily require the personal signature of the settling litigant and the court could properly find the written settlement was authorized by Diaz. We therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

Diaz’s complaint for medical malpractice was filed April 11, 1985. In November of 1987, defendants moved for enforcement of a written stipulation of settlement. Counsel for Hospital and Doctors declared their clients had authorized them to settle for $15,000 each. Counsel for Doctors made this $30,000 offer by telephone to Diaz’s then-attorney, Richard Katz, on July 2, 1987. Later the same day, Katz telephoned Doctors’ attorney and said Diaz had authorized him to accept the $30,000 offer. Defense counsel then received…

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.