Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC697314, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC697314    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: 74

Rafael David Miranda v. Andres Contreras, et al.

Motion to Enforce Settlement.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a dispute over real property.

            In 2015, Plaintiff Rafael David Miranda and Defendant Andres Contreras allegedly entered a settlement agreement in a previous lawsuit – David R. Miranda v. Andres Contreras, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC546062 – which had been dismissed in July 2014. Three years later in 2018, Plaintiff filed against Defendant a second lawsuit which is the lawsuit pending before this court. In November 2022, Plaintiff moved to enforce in this second lawsuit the first lawsuit’s purported settlement agreement.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff asserts the court should enforce the purported settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The parties allegedly entered the settlement in 2015. (Miranda Decl., ¶ 5.) The parties also allegedly agreed that, “the Court before which the action was pending or dismissed shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement.” (Miranda Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 1, p. 4A.) The action to which the settlement allegedly applied was David R. Miranda v. Andres Contreras, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC546062. (Miranda Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 1, p. 1.) As Defendant notes in his opposition, though, “a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 cannot be made in a separate action to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement in a prior action.” (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 208.) Plaintiff cites no authority holding otherwise. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion. (Because the court can decide Plaintiff’s motion based on Viejo Bancorp, the court need not address Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff altered the settlement document nor need the court address the fact that the first lawsuit had been dismissed before the parties entered into the settlement agreement.)

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.