Irvine v. Regents of University of California

In Irvine v. Regents of University of California (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 994, plaintiff and defendants reached a settlement agreement and plaintiff notified the trial court. The trial court set the matter for a dismissal hearing. Before the hearing date, plaintiff obtained documents containing information suggesting greater culpability of defendants, which plaintiff contended defendants had concealed. She refused the settlement check tendered by defendants and brought a motion to set aside the settlement. She asserted she would not have agreed to the settlement if the concealed information had been disclosed earlier. (Id. at pp. 998-999.) The trial court found nothing to justify vacating the settlement; it subsequently found plaintiff failed to show good cause to avoid dismissal pursuant to rule 3.1385(b), and dismissed the action. (Irvine, at p. 1000.) On appeal, the court concluded a party's contention that an enforceable settlement has not been reached constitutes good cause for not dismissing the case pursuant to rule 3.1385(b). The court noted that, when a dispute arises regarding whether an enforceable settlement has been reached, the party seeking to enforce the settlement has several options: he may bring a motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to section 664.6, amend his pleading to assert the settlement and move for summary judgment, or bring a separate action for breach of contract or equitable relief. (Irvine, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000.) Rule 3.1385 is not a means of enforcing settlements, but is a case management rule. "The only decision before the court at a rule 3.1385 hearing is whether to dismiss the case or restore it to the civil active list." (Irvine, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001.) The dismissal hearing is not a vehicle for obtaining a determination that a purported settlement is unenforceable. (Ibid.) However, "by alleging a dispute over whether the parties reached a binding settlement, plaintiff demonstrated good cause to restore the case to the civil active list." (Id. at pp. 1001-1002.)