Lower Court Properly Harmonized Seemingly Conflicting Terms Of Settlement Stipulation.
In Boykin v. Premier Universal, Inc., Case No. F078689 (5th Dist. Dec. 17, 2020) (unpublished), the parties settled a lemon law case, but reserved the issue of recovery of attorney’s fees for a subsequent motion. The problem was that the settlement stipulation had conflicting terms: (1) “fees and costs are to be resolved by motion to the Court;” and (2) “there will be no prevailing party status and no admission of liability.” The defense seized on (2), in opposing a fees/costs motion, to boldly contend that plaintiff stipulated that there would be no prevailing party such that fee entitlement did not lie. The lower court harmonized the two settlement provisions and determined fees/costs were justified to the tune of $65,000 in fees and $7,087.40 in costs. The Fifth District affirmed, because the (1) settlement stipulation would be rendered meaningless, and the trial judge deciding the issue was the one presiding over the settlement colloquy such that any reasonable inferences on stipulation construction was guided by the substantial evidence rule. (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co., 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 627, 632-633 (1998).)
Comments