Fair Housing Council of Central California, Inc. v. Tylar Property Management Co., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1115

Plaintiffs filed claims under federal Fair Housing Act, FEHA, UCL, negligence, Unruh Act, and other California statutes against Tylar Property Management, Melvin Wapner, and David Evans.
Defendants moved to enforce settlement agreements with McCants and Pickett and to dismiss the case.
Plaintiffs opposed enforcement, arguing releases were not voluntary, informed, or free of coercion; public policy against enforcement due to defense counsel’s alleged ethical violations.
Court considered whether the settlements could be summarily enforced and whether any ethical violations void or taint the agreements.
Court recognized a public policy interest in enforcing settlements but examined voluntariness, knowledge, and potential coercion under the totality of circumstances.
Court denied Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement and dismiss the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement agreements can be enforced despite alleged ethical issues.	Plaintiffs claim defense counsel’s actions violated Rule 2-100, undermining voluntariness.	Defendants contend agreements were negotiated directly by parties and validly formed.	No; enforcement denied due to lack of voluntary, informed waiver under totality of circumstances.
Whether plaintiffs had legal counsel during negotiations.	Plaintiffs were unrepresented during critical negotiations.	Defendants did not contact plaintiffs' counsel; counsel drafted agreements later.	Cannot enforce due to absence of counsel during negotiations and potential coercive atmosphere.
Whether restoration of consideration is required before continuing litigation.	Plaintiffs argue they may delay restoration per rescission statutes.	Defendants would be prejudiced by windfall if restoration is not required.	Court may delay restoration under Civ. Code § 1693 and will not require immediate restoration as precondition.
Whether public policy favors enforcing the settlements.	Enforcement would contravene public policy due to alleged ethical violations.	Settlement terms were clear and the parties intended to dispose of all claims.	Public policy balanced; enforcement denied due to voluntariness concerns and lack of informed waiver.

Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1978) (courts may summarily enforce settlement in pending actions)
Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1989) (settlement enforcement analogous to specific performance)
Stewart v. M.D.F., Inc., 83 F.3d 247 (8th Cir. 1996) (court may hear evidence and make factual determinations in enforcement)
Hensley v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 277 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2002) (complete settlement may be enforced if terms are ascertainable and nonperformance is insubstantial)
Kukla v. National Distillers Products Co., 483 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1973) (policy favoring settlement supports enforcement even if not in presence of court)
Myerchin v. Family Benefits, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1526 (Cal. App. 2008) (rule: may challenge settlement based on attorney conduct; rescission/restoration concepts discussed)
Village Northridge Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 50 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 2010) (expands ability to delay restoration of consideration under Civ. Code § 1693; rescission framework clarified)
Stroman v. West Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 462 (9th Cir. 1989) (voluntariness of waiver depends on indicia like clarity, counsel, atmosphere)