"Perhaps one of the required steps is to let the appeal play out? The reason I say that is because the rules of court require the appellant to notify the court immediately upon settlement"
If I am reading your post correctly, most courts would view such a tactic as very serious breach of ethics that would probably result in sanctions on all counsel. I wouldn't put anything past Leckrone since he appears to have no ethics anyway, but it doesn't seem to fit Charlie Hoge.
In any event, PTSC has announced that there has been a settlement, which means that a deal is in place regardless of whether it has been completely formalized in writing. Thus, to allow the appellate court to decide a dispute that in fact no longer exists would constitute a sham --- indeed, PTSC's own PR on this subject states, in part, that the settlement "....will end the uncertainty associated with appeals and ongoing delays within the court system..." (emphasis mine).
Different lawyers, of course, do things different ways, but, speaking for myself, I always try to remember to immediately write to the court and advise that settlement has occurred, although it may take awhile to get all of the documents executed. This is especially important when there is a trial, hearing, or other important event already docketed. In any event, however, and while I don't practice in California, it is difficult for me to believe that the courts there would take kindly to having been required to engage in needless work.
Best wishes to all.
