HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BY

MICHAEL MATAMOROS

* TENTATIVE RULING: *

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to CCP 664.6 or, in the alternative, to reform the agreement is denied.

Plaintiff contends that the term requiring the non-party Jollys to “grant the necessary easement rights” is superfluous since all parties already have easement rights to the lateral on the Jolly property. Plaintiff points to correspondence from the Water District which confirms that both contemplated water lines could be placed within the Jollys’ “existing private lateral easement.” Plaintiff maintains that adding a second waterline within the existing easement would not “overburden” the Jolly property.

Defendants disagree that the Jollys’ permission to grant easement rights is unnecessary. They attach the actual Jolly easement which repeatedly authorizes only a single underground waterline. They also note that if the Jollys do not consent to the solution