Immigrant Rights Defense Council LLC vs Alma A Medina-Figueroa et al

Case Number

23CV04595

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 04/26/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Enforce

Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ motion to enforce stipulated judgment and enter judgment is granted.

Background: 

This action commenced on October 19, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Immigration Rights Defense Council against defendants Alma A. Medina-Figueroa and Multiservice Santa Barbara, LLC seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Immigration Consultant Act.

On December 5, 2023, plaintiff made a settlement offer that included enjoining defendants from further violations of the Immigration Consultant Act and payment of fees and costs in the amount of $12,500.00. (Brown Dec., ¶ 1 & Exh. 1.) Defendant accepted the offer. (Brown Dec., ¶ 2 & Exh. 2.)

On January 10, 2024, the parties executed a stipulation for entry of final judgment with the following terms: (1) “Defendants agree to be permanently enjoined from further Violations of the Immigration Consultants Act (the ‘ICA’), which is codified at Business and Professions Code Sections 22440, et seq.” (2) “Plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $11,500 and costs in the amount of $1,000 to be paid jointly by Defendants directly to Plaintiff’s attorney, within seven days of Defendants executing this stipulation.” (3) “By signing this stipulation, neither party admits the validity of the other parties’ claims or defenses.” (4) “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action to decide any and all disputes, claims or controversies between the parties regarding the breach or enforcement of this Judgment.” (Brown Dec., ¶ 5 & Exh. 3.)

On January 31, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel stating that if they did not receive the settlement check by the next day they would rescind the stipulation and proceed with the case. (Brown Dec., ¶ 8 & Exh. 5.)

On February 1, 2024, defendants sent the settlement check and provided plaintiff with a USPS tracking number. (Brown Dec., ¶ 9 & Exh. 6.) Defendants’ settlement check had “unfair settlement” written on the memo line. (Medvei Dec., ¶ 6 & Exh. C.)

On February 2, 2024, after receiving the settlement draft and noting that it said “unfair settlement,” plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel a notice of revocation of stipulation for entry of final judgment. (Medvei Dec., ¶ 7 & Exh. D.) Later the same day, plaintiff’s counsel stated that plaintiff would keep the settlement in place if defendants paid $15,000.00 by February 5, 2024. (Brown Dec., ¶ 11 & Exh. 8.)

Also on February 2, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to file the stipulated judgment with the court but it was rejected because it was missing plaintiff counsel’s information, as required by California Rule of Court 2.111. (Opposition, Exh. B.)

Defendants now move to enforce the stipulated judgment and enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the written agreement. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Analysis:

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)

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.)

“A contract is extinguished by its rescission.” (Civ. Code, § 1688.)

Civil Code section 1689 provides:

“(a) A contract may be rescinded if all the parties thereto consent.

“(b) A party to a contract may rescind the contract in the following cases:

“(1) If the consent of the party rescinding, or of any party jointly contracting with him, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party.

“(2) If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party fails, in whole or in part, through the fault of the party as to whom he rescinds.

“(3) If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party becomes entirely void from any cause.

“(4) If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party, before it is rendered to him, fails in a material respect from any cause.

“(5) If the contract is unlawful for causes which do not appear in its terms or conditions, and the parties are not equally at fault.

“(6) If the public interest will be prejudiced by permitting the contract to stand.

“(7) Under the circumstances provided for in Sections 39, 1533, 1566, 1785,1 1789,2 1930 and 2314 of this code, Section 2470 of the Corporations Code,3 Sections 331, 338, 359, 447, 1904 and 2030 of the Insurance Code or any other statute providing for rescission.”

“ ‘ “[A] party to a contract cannot rescind at his pleasure, but only for some one or more of the causes enumerated in section 1689 of the Civil Code.” ’ [Citation.]” (Nmsbpcsldhb v. County of Fresno (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 954, 959.)

Plaintiff argues that she validly rescinded the agreement, and that the stipulation is not binding because it was rejected by the court. “Because the stipulation for judgment signed by the parties was rejected, entry of that stipulation and connected judgment was rendered impossible, voiding the parties’ agreement.” (Opposition, p. 9, ll. 17-19.) The stipulation and judgment were rejected, by the court clerk, for purely technical reasons. The stipulation did not comply with the formatting requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.111. The stipulation was not rejected by the court for any substantive reason. Plaintiff’s counsel could have simply corrected the technical deficiency, added the required information, and the court would have accepted the document and entered judgment.

Of note is that plaintiff did not reject the settlement because the check was received later than seven days after the signing of the stipulation. Plaintiff simply did not like that the memo line of the check had “unfair settlement” written on it. While perhaps a bit obnoxious of defendants to include that language on the memo line, it does not render the check invalid. Defendants’ stated belief that the settlement was unfair does not render the settlement check incapable of being deposited. People enter into settlements all the time that they believe are unfair. Further: “Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or whether they are not.” (Veijo Bancorp Inc., v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 208, fn. 4.)

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition are not persuasive. The agreement, which was indisputably valid and enforceable when made, does not fall within any of the factors of Civil Code section 1689 which would allow for unilateral rescission of the agreement. It is still a valid and enforceable agreement.

The court will enforce the stipulation for entry of final judgment.