John McCormack v. FCA US LLC, et al.

Case Number

24CV01652

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/03/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

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

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff John McCormack: Neal F. Morrow III, Christopher J.H. Im, MFS Legal Inc.

For Defendants FCA US LLC and Dodge Ram Jeep Chrysler of    Santa Barbara: Erin E. Hanson, Vanessa Dao, Clark Hill LLP

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted as follows: Judgment shall issue, in favor of Plaintiff, upon the exact terms included in the signed settlement agreement. No modifications, additions, or deletions are to be made to the terms set forth in the settlement agreement.

No sanctions are awarded in favor of, or against, any party.

Background

This action commenced on March 21, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff John McCormack against Defendants FCA US LLC (“FCA”) and Dodge Ram Jeep Fiat Chrysler of Santa Barbara (“Dodge”) (collectively “Defendants”) for: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (4) Negligent Repair.

As alleged in the complaint:

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff acquired a 2022 Dodge Ram Eco Diesel (the “vehicle”). (Compl., ¶ 7.) Defendants violated the Song-Beverly Act by failing to conform the vehicle to the warranties within a reasonable number of repair attempts or within the warranty periods, and by failing to promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution to Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 25.)

On April 24, 2024, FCA answered the complaint with a general denial and 28 affirmative defenses.

On July 24, 2024, Dodge answered the complaint with a general denial and 28 affirmative defenses.

On February 4, 2025, Defendants served Plaintiff with a signed settlement offer letter and a release agreement. (Im Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff accepted the terms of settlement. (Ibid.) [Note: The date of Plaintiff’s signature on the release agreement is February 26, 2025.]

On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire case.

Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and requests sanctions, arguing that Defendants have failed to timely fund the settlement. Plaintiff served Defendants with the motion on July 3, 2025.

Defendants have not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

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.)

To be clear, the sole purpose of a motion brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is to turn a settlement agreement into a judgment that contains the terms of the settlement agreement. It does not permit the Court to alter or add any terms. As such, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions will be denied.

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.)

Plaintiff’s motion does not specifically request that a formal judgment be entered. However, as noted above, that is the sole purpose of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

“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.)

Plaintiff represents, both in the motion and at paragraph 5 of the Im declaration, that: “The Release Agreement provides that Defendant shall complete payment within a minimum of 75 days following execution of the settlement agreement.” (Im Decl., ¶ 5.) That is a misrepresentation of what the agreement states.

The release agreement states, in the last sentence of the first paragraph: “It is expected that as a result of the COVID-19 Virus, the transaction will not be completed for a minimum of 75 days from the execution date of this settlement agreement and release.” There is no other reference to “75 days” in either the settlement letter or the agreement.

“ ‘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.)

The Court will assume, for purposes of this motion, that Plaintiff counsel’s misrepresentation was unintentional.

Summarizing the agreement:

In consideration of the payment of $89,518.36, by FCA, Plaintiff will release and discharge Defendants from all known and unknown claims, damages, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and loss of services related to the vehicle. In return, Plaintiff will transfer the ownership and possession of the vehicle, with clear title, to FCA, at a location selected by FCA, and Plaintiff will sign all papers FCA requires to transfer the vehicle to FCA. Plaintiff will return the vehicle with no original or substantial equipment missing and in an undamaged condition except for normal wear and tear and any previously alleged defects.

Within 10 days of receipt of the settlement funds, Plaintiff agrees to file a notice of dismissal, with prejudice, in this action.

The settlement letter, signed by Defendant’s counsel, contains the same essential terms. Taken together, the signed settlement letter and signed agreement constitute an enforceable settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Plaintiff’s counsel followed up on the agreement on March 14, April 3, April 9, May 6, and May 16, 2025, requesting updates and an estimated timeframe for the vehicle surrender, but received no substantive response. (Im Decl., ¶ 7 & Exh. C.)

The Court will order that the exact terms of the agreement, contained in the release agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Im declaration, will become the formal judgment. No modifications, additions, or deletions will be made to the specific terms of the settlement agreement.

As noted above, no sanctions will issue.