## Facts

- Darren Stewart was injured when his vehicle collided with a backhoe that fell off a truck owned by Preston Pipeline Inc. and driven by George Solinger.
- Stewart sued Preston Pipeline and Solinger for personal injuries in California superior court.
- The case went to mediation on June 23, 2004, attended by Stewart, his attorney, defendants’ attorney, and an insurance claims adjuster.
- At mediation’s conclusion, participants signed a document titled “Confirmation of Settlement As A Result Of Mediation.”
- The document stated the parties intended the settlement to be enforceable and not barred by specified mediation-confidentiality provisions.
- Stewart later refused to accept the settlement payment and denied a binding settlement existed.
- Defendants moved to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 and, alternatively, for summary judgment under § 437c based on the settlement.
- The trial court denied the § 664.6 enforcement motion but granted summary judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the written settlement memorialized at the end of mediation was inadmissible under Evidence Code § 1119 or admissible under Evidence Code § 1123.
2. Whether the settlement was unenforceable or outside Evidence Code § 1123 because it lacked the personal signatures of all litigants (as contrasted with attorney signatures), including in light of Levy v. Superior Court.
3. Whether triable issues of material fact existed as to mutual assent to settle or a right to rescind, precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held the written settlement agreement was admissible under Evidence Code § 1123 as an exception to mediation confidentiality.
- The court held the absence of the defendants’ personal signatures did not render the settlement unenforceable for purposes of admissibility or enforcement outside § 664.6.
- The court held no triable issue of material fact existed regarding contract formation or rescission, so summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence Code § 1119 broadly bars admission of mediation-related communications, but Evidence Code § 1123 permits admission of a written settlement agreement prepared in the course of mediation when statutory conditions are met, including an express indication it is admissible or subject to disclosure.
- For Evidence Code § 1123, “signed by the settling parties” may be satisfied by signatures of authorized counsel, where the writing reflects intent to be binding and admissible.
- Levy v. Superior Court’s personal-signature requirement applies to the expedited enforcement mechanism of Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, not to the substantive validity of a settlement agreement or to enforcement through other procedural vehicles.
- A settlement agreement that cannot be enforced via § 664.6 may still support summary judgment if the evidence establishes mutual assent as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a triable factual dispute or a legally sufficient rescission theory.

## Conclusion

A written settlement memorialized at mediation that expressly states it is enforceable and admissible falls within Evidence Code § 1123’s exception to mediation confidentiality, and it may be enforced through summary judgment even if it does not meet § 664.6’s personal-signature requirement.


Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc., 134 Cal. App. 4th 1565 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)