In 1538 Cahuenga Partners LLC v. Turmeko Properties, Inc. (2009), the party stated orally before the court in an unreported chambers conference that it agreed with a proposed settlement. Thereafter, the settlement terms were placed on the record in court. The attorney representing the party stated that he accepted them on behalf of his client who had left the courtroom and could not be located. The court responded that it had reviewed the terms of the settlement with the party and counsel in chambers and that the party understood them and agreed. Subsequently, the party attempted to avoid enforcement of the settlement under section 664.6 by claiming it had not consented to its terms on the record. Relying upon the express language of section 664.6, the appellate court rejected the contention. It explained: "Section 664.6 does not require that the party to be bound consent to the settlement 'on the record,' only that the party consent to it 'orally before the court.' . . . The party's oral statement to the court in chambers that he understood and agreed to the terms of the settlement satisfied the requirement that the party stipulate to the settlement 'orally before the court.'" (Id.)