Majidi v. Rahgoshay

Filed 6/27/06 Majidi v. Rahgoshay VA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Fell, Judge. Affirmed. Monetary sanctions ordered.

W. Dozorsky for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Joseph A. Shuff III and John J. Gulino for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Mohammad Rahgoshay argues the trial court erred by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of a stipulated settlement made orally before the trial court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)[1] Rahgoshay's argument is wholly without merit and for the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment.

I

Facts and Procedural Background

In November 2003, plaintiff Zahra Majidi filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Rahgoshay and his lawyer, Ebbi Izadian. The complaint alleged defendant, in August 2002, filed a lawsuit in propria persona alleging Majidi interfered with his marriage by counseling his wife to file for marital dissolution. Rahgoshay alleged Majidi slandered him, asserted various causes of action, and asked for punitive damages. Izadian subsequently substituted in as Rahgoshay's counsel. Defendant voluntarily dismissed the action in October 2003.

Majidi settled her malicious prosecution claim with Izadian and dismissed him from the action. Defendant retained new counsel and the parties agreed to continue the jury trial date from October to December 2004.

A minute order dated December 20, 2004, reflects the parties agreed to a settlement: â€