Section 664.6(a) In conjunction with 1008(c) question

Question

Why exactly, with pursuit to ensure the justice is served, court would not construe plaintiff's allegations that settlement was not achieved to be equivalent to plaintiff's request to enforce informal settlement?

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

From a legal perspective, these sections of California's Code of Civil Procedure address distinctly different matters that courts treat separately despite their apparent similarity. 
 
The courts distinguish between allegations that a settlement was not achieved and requests to enforce informal settlements because they require different procedural approaches and standards of proof. Under CCP 664.6(a), enforcement requires clear evidence of mutual consent and material terms, while challenging a settlement's existence involves examining whether essential elements of contract formation were met. This distinction helps preserve the integrity of settlement agreements and prevents parties from using procedural technicalities to avoid their obligations. 
 
Moreover, public policy favors settlement enforcement when valid agreements exist, so courts maintain this careful distinction to prevent parties from undermining legitimate settlements through creative pleading. Your allegations about a settlement not being achieved would need to specifically address why no valid agreement was formed, rather than serving as an indirect attempt to enforce an informal agreement that might not meet Section 664.6's strict requirements for enforcement.

Q: Section 664.6(a) In conjunction with 1008(c) question