Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 22SMUD00692, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMUD00692, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMUD00692 Hearing Date: June 13, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 22SMUD00692

MOTION: Motion to Enter Judgment (CCP § 664.6)

HEARING DATE: 6/13/2024

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section¿664.6 provides:

“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.”

“Section 664.6 empowers a court to enforce a settlement agreement by way of a summary procedure if certain requirements are satisfied. In order to take advantage of the statute’s expedited procedure, a party must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ or was made orally before the court.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304, citations omitted.) “Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) In ruling on a motion under section 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Mark M. Mintz moves for an order reinstating this action, enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties entered on August 25, 2022, order Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and award $4,844.05 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff claims that the parties entered into a settlement agreement on August 25, 2022. (Ex. A.) The agreement provides that: (a) Defendants would pay Plaintiff the sum of $108,375.00; (b) Defendants agreed to pay $3,000.00 by or before August 31, 2022; (c) monthly $3,000.00 payments on the 1st of each month commencing October 1, 2022 and continuing until the Settlement Amount is satisfied; and, (d) in the event that Defendants fail to timely comply with the payment terms of the Settlement Agreement, then Plaintiff may apply for entry of the Money Judgment. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made all payments through May 1, 2023. Plaintiff did not receive the June 1, 2023, payment and any subsequent payments.

Plaintiff fails to show that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce settlement. “‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.) “‘If requested by the parties,’ however, ‘the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.’” (Id., citations omitted.) “A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’” (Id.) “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’” (Id.)

On August 15, 2022, the parties indicated to the Court that the case was tentatively settled. On September 19, 2022, prior to the hearing on an OSC re: Settlement, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice, and without any retention of jurisdiction. Simply put, the parties did not expressly request on the record that the Court retain jurisdiction prior to the dismissal. Without such a request, the Court lost jurisdiction over this matter upon dismissal. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to use the summary procedure embodied by Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Plaintiff cites the term of the settlement wherein the parties agreed that the Court would retain jurisdiction over the action. (Ex. A, § 6.) However, the settlement’s terms alone do not confer jurisdiction. “The settlement language purporting to vest the trial court with retained jurisdiction after the dismissal was a nullity: Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver or estoppel.” (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.) Further, the settlement was not filed before or with the dismissal, and thus could not be construed as a timely request to the Court to retain jurisdiction by the parties during the pendency of the case.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.