Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 19STLC07878, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Arroyo v. Vasquez, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“the Unruh Act”) against Defendants Cesar Arturo Vasquez and Nectalina Vasquez (“Defendants”) on August 23, 2019. On February 1, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Minute Order, 02/01/21.) On the April 26, 2021 trial date, the parties appeared and represented that the action had settled. (Minute Order, 04/26/21.)

On June 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, and the Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Settlement and Dismissal held on the same day was continued to August 10, 2021. (Minute Order, 06/29/21.) On August 10, 2021, Defendant did not appear and Plaintiff requested another continuance. (Minute Order, 08/10/21.) The Order to Show Cause was continued to September 29, 2021, but on August 31, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action with prejudice. (Request for Dismissal, 08/31/21.)

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The instant motion 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, subd. (a).) 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.) The current statute provides that “parties” includes “an attorney who represents the party” and an insurer’s agent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) The settlement must include 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.) Plaintiff has demonstrated the settlement agreement complies with the statutory requirements set forth above as it was signed by both parties and their attorneys. (Motion, Johnson Decl., Exh. 1, p. 7.)

Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction must be made in writing, by the parties, before the action is dismissed for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.) “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.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff offers no evidence that the parties asked the Court to retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the settlement prior to the dismissal filed on August 31, 2021. (Motion, pp. 1:28-2:3.) Nor is there any evidence of such a retention of jurisdiction in the Court’s records. It is not enough that the parties’ settlement includes their agreement for the Court to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, if that request was presented to, and accepted by, the Court. (See Motion, Johnson Decl., Exh. 1, ¶5.) Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over this action at this time, nor jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement.

Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is DENIED.