Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 18-01014445, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Before the Court is the Motion by Plaintiff Impac Mortgage Corporation’ (“Plaintiff”) to enter judgment against Defendant Glenn Costa pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 664.6.  The Court is inclined to DENY the motion for the reasons set forth below, but will hear argument at the hearing.

Section 664.6 authorizes a court to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit only if certain requirements are met.  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)  Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to enforce a settlement agreement.  (Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1262.) 

If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce a settlement until performance in full of the settlement terms. [CCP § 664.6(a)].

The request should be made while the court still has jurisdiction. [See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439-440, 443; see Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 962—because “parties failed to request, before dismissal, that the trial court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, or alternatively seek to set aside the dismissals, … the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain” motion to enforce settlement (emphasis in original); Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918 (same).] A court has no power to order judgment pursuant to terms of the settlement if the matter was dismissed before the settlement was completed. “This is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.” [Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206]

It does not appear to be enough to provide for such retention in a settlement agreement. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶12:982.1.)

Here, the unconditional notice of settlement and dismissal do not reference section 664.6. (See ROA 74, 84.)

Where a settlement agreement provides the court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, but the dismissal fails to provide for retained jurisdiction, plaintiff's remedy is to move to vacate or modify the dismissal under CCP section 473(b) for “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” [Basinger v. Rogers & Wells (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 16, 21.] But here, it has been more than 6 months since the dismissal and thus it appears a section 473(b) motion would not be timely.