Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC658162, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC658162    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Matthew Aaron Pickart (“Plaintiff”) filed two lawsuits for damages arising out of three separate automobile accidents.  Case No. BC658162, filed against defendants Malcolm S. Watson a.k.a. Malcolm Sinclair Watson (“Watson”), Candace Seals (“Seals”), and Thomas Blanton Null a.k.a. Thomas Null (“Null”), arises out of accidents that occurred on April 30, 2015, and January 6, 2016.   On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Jerry Ragland, Trustee of the Thomas B. Null Trust (“Ragland”) as Doe 1. 

Case No. 20STCV00674, filed against defendants Curtis Franklin Hughes (“Hughes”) and Bassam Michael Naber (“Naber”), arises out of a subsequent accident that occurred on August 31, 2019.  Plaintiff complains of overlapping injuries as a result of each of the three accidents.   On July 6, 2020, the matters were ordered consolidated with BC658162 being designated the lead case. 

Hughes is currently in default.  (Request for Entry of Default filed Oct. 27, 2020.)  On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Seals, and on March 23, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Null, Ragland and Naber from the complaint.[1]  At that time, the only remaining defendants were Watson and Hughes.  Thereafter, on March 28, 2022, Watson filed a notice of settlement, and at the Final Status Conference on April 15, 2022, Plaintiff and Watson represented they reached a settlement. 

On April 27, 2022, the Court signed and filed Plaintiff’s and Watson’s Stipulation and Order Re: Severance of the Consolidation of Cases Nos. BC658162 & 20STCV00674 and Reclassification of Case No. 20STCV00674 as an Uninsured Motorist Matter.  The parties provided in part that they learned that Hughes was not covered by an automobile liability policy at the time of the of the accident, and that Plaintiff was demanding arbitration of his uninsured motorist claim.  The parties agreed that Case BC658162 could therefore be dismissed if severed from Case 20STCV00674.  Pursuant to the stipulation, the Court ordered Cases BC658162 and 20STCV00674 severed and reclassified 20STCV00674 as an uninsured motorist action.  As set forth in the Proposed Order to which the parties stipulated, Case BC658162 was ordered dismissed with prejudice with the Court reserving jurisdiction only to enforce the terms of the settlement under CCP § 664.6. 

            On October 24, 2022, Watson filed the instant Motion Requesting Court Enter Order of Good Faith Settlement and Dismiss Action.  In making this motion, Defendant mistakenly contends that “there has never been a dismissal of this action despite the fact that Plaintiff has settled his case with all defendants, except for Defendant [Hughes].”  (Mot. at p. 3:11-12.)  However, as stated above, the Court signed and filed the order severing Cases BC658162 and 20STCV00674 and dismissing Case BC658162 with prejudice on April 27, 2022, utilizing the Proposed Order submitted by the parties.  While Defendant filed an application for determination of good faith settlement on March 28, 2022, the application had not been decided when the parties filed their stipulation to dismiss the case on April 27, 2022, and the Proposed Order did not condition dismissal upon the pending application. 

            In light of the order dismissing Case BC658162 with prejudice, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.  (See Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Daniel G. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007-08.)  “The dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit deprived the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction. Absent a pending lawsuit, a court cannot issue judgments or orders. A superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over most original ‘causes.’ A cause commences with the filing of an action or special proceeding. A dismissal terminates an action. A superior court thereafter has no subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief other than costs and fees as appropriate…”  (Ibid., citations omitted.)  As Plaintiff believed that the case was not dismissed, Plaintiff provided no authority for the Court to grant the Motion Requesting Court Enter Order of Good Faith Settlement after the dismissal of the action.

            Thus, the instant motion is denied. 

Defendant Watson is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 8^th day of December 2022