Aller v. Board of Regents
Filed 1/10/07 Aller v. Board of Regents CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
GREGORY ALLER, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B180684 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC015698) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Warren L. Ettinger, Judge. Affirmed.
Gregory Aller, Robert Aller and Gloria Aller in Pro Per for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
LaFollette, Johnson, Dehaas, Felser & Ames and Douglas Guy Dickson; Marshall Silberberg; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Martin Stein and Carolyn Oill for Defendants and Respondents.
__________________________
Gregory, Robert and Gloria Aller (collectively the Allers) appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court dismissed the Allers' claims against the Regents of the University of California and UCLA (collectively the Regents) for the Allers failure to prosecute the case. Before this court the Allers do not directly challenge the dismissal. Instead, they claim the trial court committed reversible error when, prior to the dismissal, the court denied their request to enforce a purported oral settlement agreement with the Regents. The Allers assert that on March 2, 2004, they and the Regents reached a settlement agreement on the record in open court. They assert the settlement contained only three terms--(1) a payment of $199,000; (2) a waiver of costs by each side; and (3) the dismissal of the action. The Regents contend, on the other hand, the purported settlement contained these terms and several others, chief among them, a term for the conditional waiver of doctor/patient privilege. At the hearing on the Allers' request to enforce their version of the settlement agreement, the court concluded the privilege waiver was a term in the oral settlement agreement. Consequently, the court denied the Allers' request.[1]
Before this court the Allers claim the trial court erred in refusing to enforce the oral settlement agreement. They claim a waiver of the doctor-patient privilege was not a part of the settlement reached at the hearing on March 2, but was instead an afterthought sought by the Regents, and that the trial court erred in re-forming the agreement to include the waiver. They further assert the Regents should be estopped from repudiating the oral settlement. In the alternative, the Allers argue the waiver the Regents sought could not have been included in the settlement agreement in any event, because a waiver of the doctor-patient privilege violates public policy, is unnecessary and is not supported by adequate consideration.
For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the lower court's resolution. Sufficient evidence supports the court's finding the oral settlement agreement was broader than the version purposed by the Allers and that the Regents intended to include a waiver provision in the agreement. Thus, the court did not err in denying the Allers' request to enforce their version of the settlement agreement. In addition, we conclude the Allers have not demonstrated any other basis for reversal and accordingly, we affirm the judgment on this issue.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Background of Lawsuit. In 1992, the Allers filed an action against the Regents alleging appellant Gregory Aller[2] participated in an experimental treatment program at the UCLA Medical Center from 1987 through 1991. They specifically claimed Gregory Aller, who suffered from schizophrenia, participated in the UCLA program without informed consent.[3]
During the pendency of the litigation the Allers changed legal counsel a number of times. At one point the case was dismissed for a failure to prosecute, but the order dismissing the case was reversed and the matter was reinstated upon appeal.
Purported March 2004 Settlement. The case was set for trial in early 2004. Shortly before the trial was about to begin, the Allers and their counsel met with the court in chambers. During that meeting it appeared that although Allers' counsel stated they were prepared to proceed with the trial, the Allers had lost confidence in their counsel and felt that their lawyers were colluding with the Regents. The Allers expressed an interest in settling the case.[4]
Several days later on March 2, 2004, the Allers and their counsel again met with the court. During this meeting, counsel again indicated they were ready to proceed with the trial, but the Allers refused to proceed with their counsel. Instead the Allers informed the court they had made a settlement offer to the Regents and were waiting for a response. The court invited the Allers' counsel to put the terms of the settlement on the record. The following then transpired:
â€
