Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV04704, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04704    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: I

The motion for judgment is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Preliminarily, plaintiff’s counsel complains that the motion was served at the wrong address.  That appears to be true, but it is not a ground to strike the motion.  Plaintiff appears to be aware of the motion and has articulated no prejudice.  (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272.)

Turning to the merits, defendant contends that there was a prior unlawful detainer action (24SMUD02599) that settled.  In that settlement, the parties released one another.  Where there is a written settlement signed by the parties or their counsel, section 664.6 states that the agreement is enforceable by way of motion.  Generally, that is done in the court that had jurisdiction in the underlying case by way of a retention of jurisdiction clause.

The prior case concerned the lease of property at 21715 Entrado Drive in Topanga.  That is the same property at issue here.  The settlement agreement in that case included a broad form release provision in which plaintiff (defendant in that case) released defendant (plaintiff in that case) “from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, causes of action, and responsibilities, whether known or unknown, arising out of or related to the tenancy and the allegations” in that case.  The release incorporated a waiver of Civil Code section 1542, which would otherwise provide that the release does not extend to claims not known by the parties at the time of release.  The problem with the use of section 664.6 here is that enforcement can only be made in the court in which that case was pending.  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974.)  However, section 664.6 is not the only way to enforce a settlement.  A settlement is a contract, and it can be enforced like any other contract.  Thus, while this motion is styled as a 664.6 motion, the court will treat it as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Such a motion is proper in that the settlement of the UD case was filed and there is a file stamped copy of the agreement—the court can take judicial notice of it and its jural effect.

The settlement agreement, on its face, is broad enough to encompass the claims at issue here.  If so, then plaintiff’s action was released.  That said, there could be a reason why such ought not be the case.  Unlike a 664.6 motion, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is a regular motion and subject to granting leave to amend.  Leave is granted here.  It could be that plaintiff will limit the complaint to things that post date the release.  Or it could be that plaintiff will contend that the release has some meaning other than what appears to be the case (in which case there could be a parol evidence argument).  Or there could be some other reason why the release is not effective to bar the instant action. 

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED WITH 30 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.