Filed 5/4/22

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

LAURA FETTIG,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

HILTON GARDEN INNS 

MANAGEMENT LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B307348

 Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC596162

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Armen Tamzarian, Judge. Affirmed.

Mortimer Law Firm, Thomas F. Mortimer, Jr.; Orland Law 

Group and James J. Orland for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Harmeyer Law Group, Jeff G. Harmeyer and Timothy B. 

Pickett for Defendants and Respondents.

____________________
2

“Duress by a third person” is the legal label for this 

contract case. Laura Fettig is trying to escape a settlement she 

put on the record. She claims her trial lawyer forced her to take 

the deal. But duress by a third person cannot void a contract 

when the other contracting party did not know about the duress 

and relied in good faith. Fettig settled with defendants who were 

unaware of the alleged duress. Fettig’s accusation against her 

lawyer does not enable her to rescind a contract with others 

innocent of the charge. We affirm.

Fettig alleged a Hilton hotel shuttle bus hit her in 2014. 

She sued Hilton and the bus driver for a range of injuries. (We 

refer to the defendants as “Hilton.”) Hilton, on the other hand, 

maintained its bus never hit Fettig; rather Fettig, angry the 

driver cut her off, thumped her fist on his bus and faked her 

maladies. 

The case went to trial in February 2020. Fettig rested and, 

after a lunch recess, the trial lawyers announced a settlement: 

Hilton would pay $85,000 for Fettig’s release. 

On the record, the trial court asked Fettig if she agreed. 

Fettig equivocated. The trial court explained Fettig had to reach 

a definite decision about whether to accept the deal. The backand-forth continued for 10 pages of transcript, including two 

recesses for Fettig to confer with her lawyer, Jared Gross. 

After the second recess, Fettig said she did not need more 

time. The court asked if she was sure and said, “Would you like 

[to] wait overnight to think about it? Not a problem.” Fettig 

replied, “No, I don’t need overnight, your Honor.” Fettig 

acquiesced in the $85,000 settlement. The court excused the 

jury.
3

Months later, lawyers other than Gross brought a motion to 

set aside the settlement. They asserted Gross failed to prepare 

Fettig’s case for trial. The motion accused Gross of subjecting 

Fettig to duress to accept the settlement. Fettig declared, “Mr. 

Gross point blank threatened me at the counsel table by saying 

‘the defense will take your house for costs and I will not remain 

on the case any further.’ Mr. Gross further told me that if I did 

not settle the case ‘he would not be coming back to trial 

tomorrow.’ ” 

Fettig’s motion contended Gross’s duress meant the court 

should rescind the settlement agreement under Civil Code 

section 1689, which authorizes rescission for duress, and under 

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, which provides for relief in 

cases of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

The trial court denied Fettig’s motion on June 25, 2020. It 

found that, when she had agreed to the settlement in open court, 

Fettig had been neither physically nor mentally incapacitated. 

The order explained: “During her conversation with the court, 

Fettig had a relatively calm and composed demeanor, though she 

clearly had mixed feelings about the settlement and was 

disappointed she was not receiving more money pursuant to the 

deal. At times, Fettig spoke with an American accent, in contrast 

to her accent while testifying in front of the jury. She made eye 

contact with the court and answered the court’s questions 

coherently. Without hesitation she told the court she was 

‘capable’ of entering into the settlement.” 

The court found no support for Fettig’s claim that a brain 

injury impaired her capacity to agree. The court ruled Fettig had 

the capacity to settle her case. 
4

The court held Fettig’s allegations about Gross’s duress did 

not support rescission. It cited the Restatement Second of 

Contracts, as well as Chan v. Lund (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1159, 

1174 (Chan). “There is no evidence or even an allegation that 

[Hilton] or [its] counsel connived with Gross to place Fettig under 

duress or knew about Gross’s alleged threats. . . . [G]iven the 

relatively weak evidence presented by Fettig on liability, 

causation, and damages, [Hilton’s] offer was reasonable and 

certainly made in good faith. In the court’s view, [Hilton’s] offer 

was generous.” 

The court also rejected section 473 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure as a proper basis for relief. It stated it was making “no 

findings regarding Gross’s alleged malpractice. If indeed Gross 

failed to meet the standard of care for a lawyer, Fettig’s remedy 

is not setting aside the settlement.” 

Fettig then moved for reconsideration. On August 18, 

2020, the court refused to reconsider, in part because Fettig 

offered no explanation for failing to include her new submissions 

with her original motion: none of her supposedly “new” facts 

actually were new. They were merely tardy.

Fettig filed a notice of appeal on August 21, 2020. 

We independently review legal questions and defer to 

factual findings when substantial evidence supports them. (See 

Chan, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1166, 1168–1169.)

The court rightly refused to rescind the contract. It 

properly applied governing contract law, including the 

Restatement Second of Contracts.

With our emphasis, the Restatement Second of Contracts 

provides as follows:
5

“If a party’s manifestation of assent is induced by one who 

is not a party to the transaction, the contract is voidable by the 

victim unless the other party to the transaction in good faith and 

without reason to know of the duress either gives value or relies 

materially on the transaction.” (Rest.2d Contracts, § 175.)

California follows this provision. (See Chan, supra, 188 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1174, fn. 18.) Indeed, the Restatement based 

one of its pertinent illustrations on the California Supreme 

Court’s decision in Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d 195, 205–

207. (Rest.2d Contracts, § 175, reporter’s notes to com. e, illus. 

11, p. 481.)

Fettig ignores the Restatement rule. So too does she refuse 

to grapple with the case the trial court cited as its chief 

precedent: Chan. By avoiding mention of Chan, Fettig 

effectively concedes its controlling force. 

The trial court was right: Fettig had no grounds for 

rescinding a contract with parties that had not known about the 

supposed duress by third person Gross. Hilton materially relied 

on the settlement: midtrial, it surrendered the possibility of a 

defense verdict. Throughout the process, Hilton was blameless.

The trial court correctly rejected Fettig’s reliance on section 

473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Fettig sought to use this 

provision as an end run around the Restatement rule. She cites 

no case favoring her effort to dress her argument about 

contractual duress in this camouflage. The trial court rightly 

refused to put the form of the argument over the substance of the 

carefully considered Restatement rule, which controls here.

Fettig argues the trial court should have used its 

“considerable and broad discretion in equity” to rescind her 

settlement agreement. We review one of the reasons this 
6

argument fails: the trial court did weigh the equities and found 

the $85,000 settlement was “generous” to Fettig. The settlement 

was equitable.

The trial court based its conclusion about equity on firsthand familiarity with the matter. The court found Fettig’s trial 

theory was enough to get to the jury but was “wafer thin.” 

“Fettig’s case had serious problems with respect to liability, 

causation, and damages. Even if Gross had subpoenaed 

additional witnesses, it is far from clear that Fettig would have 

achieved a better result than an $85,000 recovery had the case 

been tried to verdict. . . . [A]n $85,000 settlement is not an 

inequitable result under the facts and circumstances of this case.” 

We defer to this evaluation, which was no abuse of 

discretion. Weaknesses plagued Fettig’s case. The transcript 

reveals her account of the accident was unclear. Hilton’s crossexamination inflicted further damage. Fettig had little lost 

income; she was on disability at the time. She offered no medical 

bills. Fettig claimed the incident caused her to suffer “foreign 

accent syndrome”: two months afterwards, she began speaking 

in a foreign accent. Fettig said she had been born and raised in 

the U.S., but she spoke to the jury in some sort of European 

accent. When the jury was not there, Fettig’s accent changed. 

The trial court’s exercise of discretion was sound.

The court properly denied Fettig’s motion for 

reconsideration. Such a motion requires new facts, 

circumstances, or law that, despite reasonable diligence, could 

not have accompanied the original motion. (Even Zohar 

Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC

(2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839.) Fettig did not show diligence. She 
7

offered a raft of factual material, none of which was recent. 

Fettig’s tardy presentation abused the reconsideration process.

Fettig suggests the trial court was biased against her. She 

cites no legal authority to support her bias claim and has 

forfeited this issue. (See Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 

149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) 

DISPOSITION

We affirm the court’s orders and award costs to the 

respondents.

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

GRIMES, Acting P. J. 

HARUTUNIAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.