In Stewart v. Preston Pipeline, Inc.(Case No. Hoo28333, Citation 2005 DJDAR 14681, File Date December 20, 2005, California Court of Appeal, 6th District), the plaintiff, at the conclusion of mediation signed a settlement document, but later refused to comply with the terms of the settlement.  The plaintiff attempted to use the mediation confidentiality statute to prevent the admission of a purported settlement document in subsequent proceedings to enforce the settlement.

Plaintiff and his attorney participated in mediation on a personal injury case, with his attorney and defense counsel.  At the conclusion of the mediation, plaintiff and his attorney and defendant's attorney signed a settlement document.  Plaintiff then refused the settlement check and argued that there was no settlement.  Defendant brought a motion to enforce the judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 and for summary judgment.  The trial court denied the motion to enforce pursuant to CCP §664.6 citing that the settlement was not signed by defendant, but granted the motion for summary judgment.  On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court's decision was based on a purported settlement agreement which was inadmissible under Evidence Code §1119 which provides very broad confidentiality to details and discussions that take place during mediation.

The appellate court held that a settlement agreement is admissible under Evidence Code §1123, which provides an exception to §1119 mediation confidentiality, and further found that there was no triable issue of material fact that the plaintiff had settled his dispute as evidenced by his signature on the agreement.

A mediation settlement agreement may be enforceable even when not personally signed by all parties.