70 Cal.App.5th 16
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- On Aug 21, 2011 Maria Carachure was severely injured when defendant Scott’s car struck her; Safeco insured Scott with $15,000 per-person policy limits.
- Avrek Law Firm (for Carachure and family) sent a demand dated Oct 14, 2011 for the $15,000 policy limit; Safeco’s claims rep exchanged emails and sent a signed release and policy copy and requested a signed release and payee info to issue the check.
- Communications over 2011–2012 reflected both sides treated a $15,000 settlement as reached for plaintiff, while Avrek later sent a broader demand and then contended the earlier release was unacceptable.
- Carachure lacked legal capacity after the accident; her husband and later a court-appointed guardian ad litem could potentially authorize settlement on her behalf.
- The trial was bifurcated; the court granted partial nonsuit after opening statements, finding plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the client had authorized the Oct 14, 2011 offer, and the jury found a binding settlement.
- The trial court approved the settlement over plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to file approval papers; punitive-damages allegations had been stricken earlier and the court held that settlement mooted any punitive-damages claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was partial nonsuit proper after opening statements on the consent-to-settle issue? | Nonsuit improper because defendant bore burden of proving affirmative defense and thus lacked standing to move for nonsuit. | Defendant: §581c allows a nonsuit after opening when plaintiff’s own opening concedes facts establishing an affirmative defense. | Court: Partial nonsuit proper; defendant may move and plaintiff’s concessions justified nonsuit. |
| May a court grant partial nonsuit as to an element/issue rather than the whole affirmative defense? | Plaintiff: Partial nonsuit on one element is improper. | Defendant: §581c(b) authorizes nonsuit as to some issues; precedent permits issue-level nonsuits. | Court: Allowed; §581c(b) contemplates nonsuit of particular issues. |
| Did the court err in approving the settlement unilaterally over counsel/guardian’s refusal to seek court approval? | Counsel: Court exceeded authority; approval should follow guardian’s petition and be decided after litigation. | Defendant: Court may approve under its supervisory powers when approval is in incapacitated person’s best interests, especially after jury found a valid settlement. | Court: Approval proper under §§128(a)(8),187 and §372; court found approval was in plaintiff’s best interests and reversal would harm public interest. |
| Was striking punitive damages reversible error now that settlement was reached? | Plaintiff: Striking punitive allegations was error by Judge Vineyard. | Defendant: Settlement merged/barred all preexisting claims, including punitive-damage claims. | Court: Issue moot because the binding settlement bars punitive damages; no effective relief possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanton v. Womancare, Inc., 38 Cal.3d 396 (Cal. 1985) (discusses attorney authority—actual and apparent—to act in litigation, including settlement-related acts)
- Russell v. Soldinger, 59 Cal.App.3d 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (nonsuit may be affirmed when plaintiff’s opening statement concedes facts establishing an affirmative defense)
- Galanek v. Wismar, 68 Cal.App.4th 1417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (standard of review for nonsuit following opening statements)
- Beavers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 225 Cal.App.3d 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (legislative and judicial discussion supporting partial nonsuits under §581c)
- Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co., 39 Cal.App.4th 1596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (guardian ad litem may settle but settlement requires court approval to protect ward’s interests)
- Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group, 143 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (prejudgment settlement bars relitigation of settled claims)