In Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2003) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421, only one of the parties, Elyaoudayan, was present in court and on the record agreed to the terms of the settlement. The remaining parties, the Hoffmans, signed the subsequently prepared written settlement agreement. Elyaoudayan, however, had a change of heart and refused to sign the written agreement. (Id. at p. 1426.) The trial court denied Elyaoudayan's motion to set aside the settlement, and granted the Hoffmans' motion to enforce it. (Id. at p. 1427.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held it is not necessary under section 664.6 for all parties to agree to a settlement in the same way. In other words, a " 'mix and match' approach to the manner of agreement," is permissible "as long as all parties agree to the same material terms." (Elyaoudayan, supra, 104 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1431-1432.) Thus, the settlement was enforceable despite the Hoffmans' absence from court the day the other parties orally agreed on the record, because the Hoffmans signed the written settlement agreement. The court further held Elyaoudayan's refusal to sign the written agreement did not render the settlement unenforceable. "Having orally agreed to settlement terms before the court, parties may not escape their obligations by refusing to sign a written agreement that conforms to the oral terms." (Id. at p. 1431.) In short, an oral settlement was recited on the record and was personally consented to by some, but not all, of the parties. (104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1426.) The two parties who did not give their consent at the hearing later signed a stipulation attaching the transcript of the court proceedings in which the settlement was recited. (Ibid.) The Elyaoudayan court held that because "all parties agreed to the settlement in one form or the other or both" (id. at p. 1432), it was immaterial that some of the parties merely signed the agreement attaching the court transcript while others gave their oral consent in court.