Briscoe

Briscoe v. The Painted Nail CA2/7

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 20, 2014B252066California1,188 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zelon, J.

DISCUSSION

I. The Trial Court Properly Denied the Motion to Enter Judgment

On appeal, Painted Nail argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enter judgment enforcing the material terms of the section 998 offer. Painted Nail asserts that the section 998 offer contained, as a material term “a complete release and dismissal,” embodied by the release it provided to Briscoe after the offer was accepted. While Painted Nail relies on section 664.6 for its argument, the trial court correctly recognized that the statute precludes the relief appellant seeks. Section 664.6 requires either a writing signed personally by the parties, or a stipulation made in open

Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court had not entered judgment at the time the motion was filed.

3 court.3 A written agreement signed by counsel for the parties is not sufficient to invoke the statutory provisions. (Cortez v. Kenneally (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 523, 528.) Painted Nail failed at the trial court and at this court to point to a qualifying writing, or to a court record, that would satisfy these requirements. (Estrada…

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.