Wendy Ventura, et al. vs. Dwight Boytis, et al

Case Number

22CV01698

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Plaintiffs to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Wendy Ventura and Valerie Silguero: Gregory J. Ramirez, Law Office of Gregory J. Ramirez, Alexander Rosenberg, Rosenberg Law, P.C.

For Defendants Joyce Lynn Blocker and the Joyce Lynn Blocker Living Trust: Eric A. Woosley, Law Office of Eric Woosley

For Defendant Dwight Boytis: Michael David Fox

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted as follows:

1. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Joyce Blocker with the following terms:

“Joyce Blocker shall amend her trust to give, upon her death, ten percent (10%) of the net value of her trust after costs and fees to Wendy Ventura. This amendment shall be irrevocable. The amendment shall be made forthwith and no later than January 31, 2025.”

“Joyce Blocker shall amend her trust to give, upon her death, ten percent (10%) of the net value of her trust after costs and fees to Valerie Silguero. This amendment shall be irrevocable. The amendment shall be made forthwith and no later than January 31, 2025.”

“Plaintiffs shall pay for the cost of preparing the trust amendments.”

“Joyce Blocker shall notify the District Attorney that she is dropping her Elder Abuse Restraining Order against Valerie Silguero, and provide written proof, no later than January 15, 2025.”

“Parties shall pay their own attorney fees and costs.”

2. The judgment shall be effective as of March 1, 2024.

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall prepare a formal order after hearing, and provide it to Joyce Blocker’s counsel for approval as conforming to the court’s order, no later than January 10, 2025.

4. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall prepare the formal judgment, containing, and not modifying, the terms as set forth above, no later than January 15, 2025.

Background

Plaintiffs Wendy Ventura (Ventura) and Valerie Silguero (Silguero) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed their original complaint in this matter on May 3, 2022, alleging two causes of action for (1) general negligence (against Defendants Dwight Boytis (Boytis), Joyce Blocker (Blocker), and the Joyce Lynn Blocker Living Trust (the Blocker Trust)), and (2) premises liability (against Boytis and Blocker). Blocker filed an answer to the complaint on June 1, 2022. Boytis’s default was entered on July 20, 2022, which was vacated on October 26, 2022. (See Oct. 26, 2022, Minute Order.) On November 14, 2022, Boytis filed a demurrer to Plaintiffs’ original complaint. On December 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC). Pursuant to its Minute Order dated January 4, 2023, the court deemed the filing of the FAC as an acknowledgment that Boytis’s demurrer had merit. The Court accordingly sustained the demurrer, with leave to amend, and designated the FAC as the amended pleading. The court further noted that the FAC would count toward the three-amendment limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(e)(1). (See Jan. 4, 2023, Minute Order.)

Following another demurrer, the operative second amended complaint (SAC) was filed on May 15, 2023, and alleges causes of action for: (1) Gross Negligence -against all Defendants, (2) Premises Liability - against Blocker and the Blocker Trust, (3) Sexual Battery - against Boytis, and (4) Sexual Assault - against Boytis.

As alleged in the SAC:

The Blocker Trust was set up for Blocker for the purpose of owning and renting property located at 6144 Caleta Avenue, Goleta (the Property). (SAC, ¶ 5.)

In December 2021, Ventura and Boytis were in the Property and, at some point in the evening, Ventura regained consciousness after experiencing a momentary lapse of time. (SAC, ¶ 8.) After Ventura regained her awareness, she was being digitally penetrated by Boytis without her consent. (Ibid.) On December 20, 2021, Blocker, who had not taken her medication, became combative toward Plaintiffs and threatened to cause harm to Silguero and her newborn babies. (SAC, ¶ 9.) Shortly after December 20, 2021, Blocker became friends with Boytis.

On February 13, 2022, Boytis, who had been drinking Jack Daniel’s alcohol, cornered Silguero and reached for Silguero’s breast while Silguero was holding her daughter. (SAC, ¶ 11.) Silguero moved Boytis’ hand, took a step to her right, and told Boytis not to touch her. (Ibid.) Silguero then brought the incident to the attention of Blocker. (Ibid.)

Approximately a week later, Blocker informed Ventura and Silguero that she had decided to rent a room to Boytis in the premises where Ventura and Silguero were living. (SAC, ¶ 12.) Ventura and Silguero made several attempts to explain to Blocker that renting a room to Boytis would put them in danger, but Blocker ignored them and rented a room to him anyway. (SAC, ¶ 14.)

On March 1, 2022, Boytis moved into the premises. (SAC, ¶ 15.) The following day, Boytis became hostile, and the hostility persisted until Ventura and Silguero felt they were no longer safe in the premises. (SAC, ¶ 16.)

After six weeks of inappropriate comments, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, and other actions, Plaintiffs provided Blocker and Boytis a Cease and Desist letter to Blocker and Boytis detailing events that occurred from March 1, 2022, through April 11, 2022. (SAC, ¶¶ 17, 18.)

The SAC alleges numerous other instances of harassment and inappropriate behavior. (SAC, ¶¶ 19-28 & 30-34.) When Plaintiffs brought the issues to Blocker’s attention, Blocker told them that Boytis pays rent and that she needs more money to finish getting her dentures. (SAC, ¶ 29.)

On May 16, 2022, after an incident the previous day, Plaintiffs called the police to have a discussion with Boytis about the harassment, which resulted in the police officer causing Blocker to issue a 30-day notice for Boytis to move out of the premises for the harassment against Plaintiffs. (SAC, ¶¶ 38-40.)

Following the service of the 30-day notice was served on Plaintiffs, Boytis became insistent that Blocker should evict Plaintiffs instead, and Blocker agreed but told Boytis that she did not know how to remove them from the premises. (SAC, ¶ 41.) Boytis told Blocker that he would help remove Plaintiffs and Silguero’s twin babies. (Ibid.)

On June 1, 2022, Boytis began to move out of the premises but on June 5, 2022, Boytis was still entering the premises under the ruse that he was there solely to visit Blocker. (SAC, ¶ 43.) The visits were strategy sessions to retaliate against Plaintiffs. (Ibid.)

After Boytis finally moved out of the premises, Blocker became increasingly erratic, violent, and unpredictable. (SAC, ¶ 45.) On July 23, 2022, Blocker attacked Silguero’s daughter and an independent witness called the police and reported the attack. (SAC, ¶ 47.) The police arrived and arrested Blocker but, following contact from Blocker’s attorney, the case was not pursued. (Ibid.) The following day, Blocker was released from jail and returned to the premises angry, violent, erratic, and unpredictable. (SAC, ¶ 48.)

On July 26, 2022, Blocker caused Plaintiffs to be served with a Request for Restraining Order based on false accusations of elder abuse. (SAC, ¶ 50.)

A settlement conference was held on March 1, 2024, which resulted in a settlement as between Plaintiffs and Blocker only. The following terms were put on the record in open court and are included in a minute order of that date:

“The settlement agreement is intended to be a complete and final settlement of claims known and unknown, and section 1542 is waived.”

“Joyce Blocker shall amend her trust to give, upon her death, ten percent (10%) of the net value of her trust after costs and fees to Wendy Ventura. This amendment shall be irrevocable.”

“Joyce Blocker shall amend her trust to give, upon her death, ten percent (10%) of the net value of her trust after costs and fees to Valerie Silguero. This amendment shall be irrevocable.”

“Plaintiffs shall pay for the cost of preparing the trust amendments.”

“Joyce Blocker shall notify the District Attorney that she is dropping her Elder Abuse Restraining Order against Valerie Silguero.”

“Parties shall pay their own attorney fees and costs.”

“Ms. Ventura, Ms. Silguero, Ms. Blocker, and Mr. Varatto acknowledged their agreement and understanding of the settlement terms as indicated above and stated their understanding of their duties and rights enforceable under the Court supervised settlement per CCP § 664.6.”

“A written settlement agreement shall be prepared by Mr. Ramirez.”

As a result of the settlement agreement, on June 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a dismissal of the entire action.

On November 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the present motion to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, arguing that Blocker has failed to honor her obligations under the settlement agreement by not dismissing her claims of elder abuse against Silguero, has not amended her trust as agreed, and is liquidating her trust to avoid complying with the agreement.

On December 23, 2024, Blocker and the Trust filed their opposition to the motion making several arguments including very serious allegations that Plaintiffs filed a fabricated signed settlement agreement and submitted knowingly false declarations to this court. Blocker and the Trust acknowledge the validity of the settlement that was place on the record on March 1, 2024, and claim: (1) Blocker refused to sign a settlement agreement and mutual release that was prepared by Plaintiffs that attempted to change the terms of the settlement; (2) Blocker signed a settlement agreement which accurately reflected the settlement; (3) Plaintiffs never signed the accurate settlement agreement but instead prepared and demanded that Blocker sign a trust amendment that changed the terms of the settlement; (4) Blocker never represented that they wound not sell Blocker’s home; and (5) Blocker timely notified the District Attorney’s Office of the desire to have the elder abuse charges dropped and provided proof of the communication to Plaintiffs twice.

Blocker and the Trust suggest that the Plaintiffs be ordered to sign the settlement agreement that they untruthfully claim to have already signed, and that Blocker should be allowed to sign the trust amendment that accurately reflects the terms of the settlement.

By way of reply, Plaintiffs argue that Blocker and the Trust’s claims that Plaintiffs are attempting to change the terms of the agreement are false and that, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary, the settlement agreement submitted with the motion was signed by Plaintiffs and Defendants.

Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

“(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

“(1) The party.

“(2) An attorney who represents the party.

“(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

“(c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile court or a dependency court.

“(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party's express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.”

“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id.)

A court hearing a motion brought under section 664.6 may “receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment”, but may not “create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.)

Plaintiffs’ motion does not specifically request that a formal judgment be entered. However, that is the purpose of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, not to force a party to sign another document that may, or may not, contain the terms of settlement.

“A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.” (Ibid.) “In order for acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal “ ‘must be sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance promised is reasonably certain.’ ” [Citation.] A proposal “ ‘cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the terms of the contract are reasonably certain. [¶] The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining . . . the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.’ ” [Citation.] If, by contrast, a supposed “ ‘contract’ ” does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, there is no contract. (See, e.g., 1 Williston on Contracts (4th ed. 1990, Lord) § 4:18, p. 414 [“It is a necessary requirement that an agreement, in order to be binding, must be sufficiently definite to enable the courts to give it an exact meaning.”]; see also Civ. Code § 3390, subd. 5 [a contract is not specifically enforceable unless the terms are “ ‘sufficiently certain to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.’ ”] )” (Id. at pp. 811-812.)

There is no dispute that the parties entered into a binding agreement on March 1, 2024. The present dispute is about the language of the proposed formal written agreement and compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The court will order that the terms of the agreement, as stated in open court on March 1, 2024, will become the formal judgment. As the parties do not appear willing to fully cooperate with each other, the court will impose reasonable deadlines for compliance.

As for the allegations of providing fraudulent documents and declarations to the court:

“ ‘An attorney is an officer of the court and owes the court a duty of candor.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘It is the duty of an attorney . . . [t]o employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.’ ” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (d).) Moreover, “ ‘A lawyer shall not: (1) knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer . . ..’ ” (State Bar Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3.3(a)(1) (asterisks omitted).) “ ‘ “Honesty in dealing with the courts is of paramount importance, and misleading a judge is, regardless of motives, a serious offense.” ’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘Counsel should not forget that they are officers of the court, and while it is their duty to protect and defend the interests of their clients, the obligation is equally imperative to aid the court in avoiding error and in determining the cause in accordance with justice and the established rules of practice.’ ” [Citations.]” (Perry v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1088, 1095-1096.)

While the court is displeased that an attorney in this case has violated his duty of candor, and after reviewing the documents attached to the declarations, has a good idea of which attorney violated the duty, in the interests of concluding this matter the court will not issue an order to show cause. This does not imply that the transgression is taken lightly. It is not. Counsel will be reminded of the potential consequences of either intentionally providing false information to the court, or, failing to correct false information that was unintentionally provided.

The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by Plaintiffs and it does not comply with what was agreed to. For example, paragraph 3 of the proposed order states: “That Defendant’s counsel, Erick Woosley, adequately advise Joyce Lynn Blocker dismiss any and all claims against Valerie Silguero for elder abuse and/or battery that are currently pending . . ..” Advice of counsel is not what was agreed to. What was agreed to is: “Joyce Blocker shall notify the District Attorney that she is dropping her Elder Abuse Restraining Order against Valerie Silguero.” The agreement is straight-forward, and the judgment shall simply state what was agreed to with no more and no less.

Plaintiffs’ counsel will be ordered to prepare an order that conforms to the actual agreement recited in open court, and including the deadlines noted above. No additional fees or costs will be awarded against or in favor of any party.