Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STLC01297, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC01297    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 26

Castillo v. Dublin 815, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Juan Castillo’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff Juan Castillo (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against Defendant 815 Dublin, LLC (erroneously sued as Dublins 815, LLC) (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on March 28, 2019. On February 7, 2022, the parties appeared for trial and represented that a settlement had been reached, as follows: “A total of $4,000 is to be paid to the Plaintiff, Juan Castillo, by the Defendant, DUBLINS 815, LLC. The first payment of $800 is due on February 15, 2022, and to continue on the 15th of each month thereafter, until paid in full.” (Minute Order, 02/07/22.) The Court set an Order to Show Cause regarding the status of settlement and dismissal for August 2, 2022. (Ibid.) At the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff failed to appear and upon Defendant’s request, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (Minute Order, 08/02/22.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement on September 13, 2022. No opposition to the Motion been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion to Enforce Settlement is brought under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, which states in relevant part:

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.) Prior to January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys.  (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must have included the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) The settlement agreement here complies with the statutory requirements in so far as it was made in open court.

Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction was made in writing, by the parties, before the action was dismissed. (Id. at Exh. A, pp. 5-6.) These requirements must also be met for the retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [“requests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the settlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court or in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys, spouses or other such agents. If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.”].) Here, the parties did not request for the Court to retain jurisdiction of the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (See Minute Order, 02/07/22.)

Therefore, now that the action has been dismissed, the Court has no current jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff must first either vacate the dismissal of this action or bring a separate action to enforce the settlement.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Juan Castillo’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.