This decision affirms an order enforcing a settlement agreement that resolved 20 medical malpractice actions–even though the agreement for liquidated damages of $50,000 per month up to a cap of $1.5 million if the defendant failed to timely pay the installments due under the $575,000 settlement amount.  The opinion emphasizes that under Civ. Code 1781(b), which applies to contracts other than consumer contracts or residential leases, the party trying to avoid a liquidated damages provision bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damage amount is unreasonable.  The opinion also emphasizes the Law Revision Commission’s comment that in deciding reasonableness, the trial court should consider all of the circumstances existing at the time the agreement for liquidated damages was entered into.  Here, the circumstances showing reasonableness were: the settlement agreement was heavily negotiated between the litigants’ attorneys, the cap on liquidated damages was set at the amount plaintiffs thought they would recover if they had gone to trial, and plaintiffs had settled at a steep discount to obtain prompt payment and avoid decreasing the amount of available insurance coverage through a wasting limits malpractice policy.