Magliocco v. Kanbar
Filed 2/8/07 Magliocco v. Kanbar CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
BELINDA MAGLIOCCO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MAURICE KANBAR, Defendant and Appellant. | A113538 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 312942) |
Appellant Maurice Kanbar appeals a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.[1] He claims on appeal that the settlement agreement is unenforceable under section 664.6 because it was not signed by all settling parties and that the parties did not comply with the terms of the agreement. We disagree and affirm.
I.
Factual and Procedural
background
Respondents Belinda Magliocco, Dortha Hellman, Betsy Feichtmeir, Michael Barcun, and Ronald Schwarz filed a complaint against appellant on August 18, 2000, alleging violation of San Francisco's rent ordinance and other causes of action.[2]
The trial court awarded appellant costs in the amount of $11,209.17 on October 22, 2001, and respondents appealed. On February 7, 2002, the trial court awarded appellant $237,500 in attorney fees.
Four days later, the parties participated in a mediation at Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services with Jill Fannin, who was assigned through this court's mediation program. The parties agreed on a settlement that day and signed an agreement dated February 11, 2002 (the February 11 agreement). Respondents Barcun, Magliocco, Feichtmeir, and Schwarz personally signed the agreement. Respondent Hellman was unable to attend the mediation, and someone else signed the agreement as her attorney in fact. Moore and Thakar also were unable to attend, but their attorney signed the agreement on their behalf as their power of attorney.
The agreement called for appellant to waive his attorney fees and costs in exchange for plaintiffs dropping their appeal and waiving their rights under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and the Ellis Act (Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq.). The settlement was memorialized on a typed settlement form, with provisions specific to the parties' dispute handwritten on the form. The agreement provided, in part, â€
