In Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, the decision maker on the motion to enforce had been retained as a mediator only; no one even contended that arbitration had ever been agreed to. As the Court of Appeal explained: "When the parties attempted to 'formalize' the additional terms of their settlement, numerous disputes became apparent. Respondents then filed a 'Motion to Specifically Enforce Settlement' pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (section 664.6). This 'motion' was filed not with the court, but rather with the mediator (hereafter private judge). The second ADR phase then followed pursuant to the clause quoted above. The exact nature of this second phase was disputed. Appellants regarded it as a continuation of mediation. Respondent and the private judge regarded it as a binding dispute resolution process authorized by section 664.6. No one contended that the further ADR proceedings were a form of arbitration, and no one has made that contention on appeal. The second ADR phase took place in several lengthy sessions. Most of these sessions were recorded by a court reporter, and transcripts are in the record. The transcripts clearly show lack of agreement on many material terms. Appellants -- who regarded the process as a continuation of voluntary mediation -- then declined to participate further. Respondent and the private judge, relying upon section 664.6 as authority, then continued the process in appellants' absence. The private judge then signed a 33-page 'Order Enforcing Settlement Agreement, etc. and Awarding Attorneys' Fees.' This 'order' purported to impose upon appellants numerous material settlement terms to which appellants had never agreed." (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at pp. 796-797.)