Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV00003, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00003    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Whitaker v. Karrass, Case No. 22SMCV00003

Hearing Date September 21, 2023

Plaintiff Whitaker’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

Plaintiff Whitaker alleges he and defendant Simpson agreed to settle, and the court dismissed the matter July 27, 2022. The settlement agreement allows for continued jurisdiction and enforcement per Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6. Whitaker alleges Simpson defaulted on monthly payments under settlement agreement and seeks to enter judgment.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6, “if parties 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…the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”

The settlement agreement and stipulation attached to the motion contain 664.6 language and are signed by Simpson. See plaintiff’s exhibit 1, pg. 8, exhibit 2 pgs. 1-2. Entry of default as to Simpson is appropriate.

Karrass’ declaration notes he did not agree to continued jurisdiction and is not a party to the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement does name Karrass as an intended beneficiary but does not include his signature. Section 664.6 requires parties to consent to continued jurisdiction either orally or by signing. There is no evidence Karrass, though named as an intended beneficiary, consented to continuing jurisdiction.

Dismissal is vacated and judgment entered as to defendant Simpson only. Plaintiff may seek other remedies regarding defendant Karrass, but relief is not available under this statute.