Cenzone Tech v. Wu CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 2023D079891California6,046 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Cenzone Tech, Inc. (Cenzone) appeals an order granting a motion for entry of judgment filed by defendant and cross- complainant Mark Kane-Berman and cross-complainant Microbasics, LLC (Microbasics) under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The trial court entered judgment after finding that the parties executed a valid settlement agreement resolving all causes of action between them, known and unknown. According to Cenzone, the settlement agreement was unenforceable because Cenzone never intended to settle causes of action that were known to the parties, but unasserted in their pleadings. Cenzone also argues the court erred by denying its motion for leave to amend its complaint to assert several new causes of action against Kane-Berman and Microbasics. We conclude the trial court properly granted the motion for entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, which clearly and unambiguously released all claims between the parties, known and unknown. Further, we conclude the court did not prejudicially err in denying Cenzone’s motion for leave to amend its complaint. Therefore, we affirm the order denying Cenzone’s…

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.