Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC04841, Date: 2023-09-14 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. 

 **Please note we no longer use CourtCall** 

Case Number: 20STLC04841    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: 26

 

Gazcon v. Sierra, et al.

ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
(CCP § 664.6)


TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Ruben Gazcon’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

 

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Plaintiff Ruben Gazcon (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of lease agreement against Defendants Iris Sierra and Nahun Chavez (“Defendants”) on June 10, 2020. Defendants filed answers on July 17, 2020. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement on August 30, 2022, following which the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) for May 3, 2023. (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), 09/08/22.) When neither party appeared at the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (Minute Order, 05/03/23.)

 

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Entry of Judgment on June 1, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

 

Discussion

 

The instant motion is brought pursuant to 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) [emphasis added].) Plaintiff’s motion fails to include this crucial last line in the memorandum of points and authorities. (See Motion, p. 3:12-17.)

 

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.) The settlement agreement here complies with the statutory requirements set forth above because it was signed by all parties. (Motion, Plummer Decl., Exh. A, p. 1.)

 

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.”].) There is no indication that the parties asked the Court to retain jurisdiction of the instant action to enforce the settlement agreement prior to dismissal on May 30, 2023, as required by the statute.

 

Therefore, the Court finds that the parties’ settlement agreement is not enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. As explained above, enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.

 

Conclusion

 

Plaintiff Ruben Gazcon’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

 

 

Court clerk to give notice.