Haldeman v. Boise Cascade

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BEST; HAMLIN, Acting P.J., and FITCH
• Citation: 176 Cal.App.3d 230,221 Cal.Rptr. 412
• Parties: Jean HALDEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOISE CASCADE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. F001530.
• Decision Date: 30 December 1985

Page 412

221 Cal.Rptr. 412 176 Cal.App.3d 230 Jean HALDEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BOISE CASCADE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. F001530. Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. Dec. 30, 1985.

[176 Cal.App.3d 231] Morgan, Ruby, Teter, Schofield, Franich & Fredkin and Allen Ruby, San Jose, for plaintiff and appellant.

Sandell, Young & St. Louis, Wild, Carter, Tipton & Oliver, Brad B. Geery, Chinello, Chinello, Shelton & Auchard, Daniel I. Aller, III, Fresno, Barr, Newlan & Sinclair, Steven P. Hale, Redding, Parichan, Renberg, Crossman & Harvey, Richard C. Crossman, Fresno, Silveira, Garrett, Goul, Curry & Mattos, Weldon J. Mattos, Jr., Merced, Stammer, McKnight, Barnum & Bailey, Frank D. Maul, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc., Oakland, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Walsh, Paynter & Brown, Inc., Fresno, Lee M. Jacobson, Carl Brown, Oakland, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Mario L. Beltramo, Jr., Mushines, Baradat & Van Doren, Dominic P. Mushines, Fresno, Isham, Macias, Lynch, Cronin & Rodriguez, Richard M. Macias, Visalia, Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson and Christopher Engh, Stockton, for defendants and respondents.

[176 Cal.App.3d 232] BEST, Associate Justice.

Appellant, Jean Haldeman, appeals from an order compelling enforcement of a judicially

Page 413

supervised settlement agreement. We will affirm and remand with directions.

Following a multiple vehicle accident occurring on Highway 99 in Merced County, numerous complaints for damages for personal injuries were filed by various plaintiffs against various defendants. Ultimately, the various actions were consolidated and a settlement conference was held on February 2 and 5, 1982, before Judge Donald R. Fretz of the Merced County Superior Court. Appellant was present with her attorney, Mr. Daniel H. Asturias, at the start of the settlement conference on February 2 but was permitted to return home to be available by telephone. Appellant did not attend the February 5 conference but again was available by telephone.

At 5:30 p.m. on February 5, the attorneys announced that a settlement had been reached, and the settlement was placed on the record. Except in one case, the plaintiffs in all of the actions were to receive an aggregate sum of $193,000 from all of the defendants. The total sum was to be divided among the plaintiffs, with plaintiff Jean Haldeman to receive $9,500. The allocated sums were to be considered a full settlement of all pending claims with prejudice, and plaintiffs were to dismiss suits upon receipt of the funds. Mr. Mushines, counsel for defendant Razarri Ford, agreed to prepare one release naming all defendants, which would be signed by all plaintiffs. The money was to be made payable to Mr. Nelson, counsel for plaintiff Robert Weatherford, as trustee of the settlement funds. When Nelson received all releases and dismissals from plaintiffs, he would disperse the monies collected from defendants.

After the settlement was placed on the record, the trial court polled the attorneys to see if the settlement as stated represented the actual agreement. Each attorney answered in the affirmative, including Mr. Asturias on behalf of plaintiff Haldeman.

On May 7, 1982, Mr. Nelson sent a letter to all counsel involved in the lawsuit, indicating that he had received all settlement funds from defendants and had received releases from all plaintiffs except Jean Haldeman who refused to sign the release. Thereafter, a motion to...