Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: BC553723, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC553723    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 14

Instant Motion

            Plaintiff moves this court for an order enforcing the settlement, setting aside the dismissal, and entering judgment in its favor.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Governing Statute

            Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 states in relevant part:

“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.”

Discussion

            The court lacks jurisdiction over the settlement, because the parties never properly asked this court to retain such jurisdiction. On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement that indicated the presence of a Section 664.6 clause in the agreement. On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal with a note on it saying that their agreement was “to dismiss without prejudice and retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6 and pursuant to settlement agreement between the parties.”

Filing of that voluntary dismissal form deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case. Appellate authority is clear that the parties must formally request that the court retain jurisdiction while the case is still pending. The court may not resume jurisdiction after it has been lost through dismissal. The most recent example of this rule is Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5^th 913.

In that case, the parties signed sophisticated settlement agreements that contained a provision for the court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Section 664.6. Mesa, supra, 33 Cal.App.5^th at 915-916. But those agreements were never presented to the court, in the form of a stipulation or any other way. Id. at 918. Instead, counsel for the plaintiff took the usual Judicial Council Request for Dismissal form, filled it out, wrote “Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement per C.C.P. § 664.6” on it, and filed it. Id. at 916. When the plaintiff later tried to file a motion to enforce the settlement, the Court of Appeal held that the language inserted into the request for dismissal form did not meet the statutory requirements, which were to be construed strictly given the summary nature of such motions. Id. at 917. The written note on the request for dismissal was insufficient, and the provisions in the settlements themselves were irrelevant because they had never been presented to the court. Id. at 917-918. Therefore, as soon as the request for dismissal was entered, the court had lost jurisdiction over the case and was without power to hear the motion. Id. at 917-919.

The situation in this case is even less ambiguous than in Mesa. Not only was this court never presented with a settlement agreement, but there was no appearance made by anyone at the final hearing before the case was dismissed. The court did not retain jurisdiction pursuant to Section 664.6 and it cannot resume jurisdiction now.

Conclusion

            The court is without jurisdiction to grant this motion. The motion is DENIED.