Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: SC128144, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC128144    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

 Plaintiffs Stephen Martin Paull and Tonie Keyton Paull (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Jorge Gudino, Adele Gudino (collectively, “Defendants”), and Mona Ahmed. Plaintiffs obtained judgment against Ahmed in 2019. Plaintiffs and the Gudinos are owners of adjacent property sharing a property line. This action stems from allegations that Defendants were illegally listing their property for short-term rentals.  The remaining parties entered into a settlement agreement and on February 1, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants’ Cross-Complaint. On March 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate that dismissal. Plaintiffs now move the Court to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.

 Legal Standard

 Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 provides a summary procedure that enables judges to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement. In particular, the statute provides:

  (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.
(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

 (C.C.P.¿§ 664.6(a)-(b).)

 Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) One of the requirements is that the agreement must be signed by the parties “seeking to enforce the agreement under section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74¿Cal.App.4th 299, 305.) The purpose of this requirement is to “facilitate the summary nature of the proceeding by decreasing the likelihood of misunderstandings and ‘minimiz[ing] the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the settlement.” (Id. [citing Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 578, 585].)

 Analysis

 On April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of the Case. This notice indicated dismissal of the action was conditioned “on the satisfactory completion of specified terms….” (Notice at ¶1.b.) On April 7, 2022, the Court set an Order to Show Cause re: dismissal for May 13, 2022, to allow for the performance of the conditions specified in the settlement agreement. This Order to Show Cause was subsequently continued multiple times at the request of the parties to allow the terms of the settlement agreement to be satisfied. According to Plaintiffs’ uncontested representations, the Court dismissed their case on February 1, 2023, when Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear at the continued hearing on the Order to Show Cause.

 Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion under Code Civ. Proc. § 473 to vacate the Court’s dismissal on the basis that it was entered as a result of the mistake or inadvertence of counsel. The Court granted this motion on March 16, 2023. Plaintiffs now move the Court to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.

 It is undisputed that the parties reached a global settlement in this case which required Defendants to pay $6,000 to Plaintiffs and cooperate in Plaintiffs’ building of a fence between the parties’ respective properties. (Ex. 1 to Morris Decl.) Defendants were not required to pay any costs associated with the construction of the fence, and Plaintiffs were obligated to construct a fence which was permitted and code-compliant. (Id.)

 Defendants argue Plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the summary enforcement mechanism of Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 because the parties’ agreement did not contain a request for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. But the last sentence of section 664.6 upon which Defendants rely for this argument relates to a dismissed case, as a court would not retain jurisdiction in a dismissed case without an express reservation of jurisdiction. Defendants argue that because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on February 1, 2023, Plaintiffs’ only remedy to enforce the settlement agreement would be to file a new action for breach of contract. Defendants’ argument ignores the effect of motion to vacate dismissal previously brought by Plaintiffs and granted by the Court. Courts have recognized that enforcement through section 664.6 may be had where a party has been granted relief from dismissal through section 473:

  In this case Hagan did not make a request for the court to “retain jurisdiction,” but instead, as required by the settlement,
dismissed the action with prejudice. A court does not retain jurisdiction over a case which has been dismissed. So far as the
superior court was concerned, it was as if no action had ever been filed, at least, unless and until Hagan sought and obtained relief from the dismissal and reinstatement of the lawsuit.

(Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010; see also Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206 [holding “a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to vacate the dismissal” was required to bring a motion to enforce settlement pursuant to section 664.6 following dismissal of an action].)

 Defendants do not contest the terms of the settlement. Rather, they claim they do not have to pay Plaintiffs the required $6,000 because the fence built by Plaintiffs “does not comply with the municipal code.” (Opposition at 4.) Plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing the fence was permitted and has been inspected and approved by the city of Culver City on several occasions. (Paull Decl. at ¶¶3-8; Exs. 5-7 to Paull Decl.) Defendants do not dispute the authenticity of this documentation, and have provided the Court with no evidence that the subject fence is in any way not compliant with applicable codes or permitting requirements. Defendants do not even identify which provision or provisions of the Municipal Code they claim the fence violates.

 On such facts, the Court finds Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated they have complied with the terms of the parties’ settlement in the construction of the fence between the parties’ properties. As Defendants’ payment of $6,000 was conditioned on the adequate construction of the fence, that $6,000 is now due to Plaintiffs. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement. Plaintiffs are to file and serve a proposed judgment in conformance with the terms of the parties’ settlement.

 Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.