Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "HAJP, LLC v. Plutos Sama Holdings, Inc.", Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff HAJP, LLC’s Motion to Enforce Forbearance Agreement and Enter Stipulated Judgment
Plaintiff HAJP, LLC moves pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 664.6 to enforce a forbearance agreement and for entry of a stipulated judgment against defendant Plutos Sama Holdings, Inc. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Plaintiff states that plaintiff and defendant entered into a forbearance agreement on or about January 5, 2022. The parties agreed in the forbearance agreement that the Orange County Superior Court “shall have jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” The parties further agreed that if defendant failed to make certain payments set forth in the forbearance agreement, and did not cure its default, plaintiff could file a stipulation for entry of judgment. Plaintiff dismissed the entire lawsuit without prejudice on January 26, 2022. ROA No. 179. Before plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit, the parties did not request that the court retain jurisdiction pursuant to section 664.6 to enforce the forbearance agreement.
A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 must be made during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety. Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917. Where parties settle and dismiss a case before asking the court to retain jurisdiction for purposes of section 664.6, the court is thereafter without subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Satya v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5h 960, 965-68.
Here, the parties did not request that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 before plaintiff dismissed the entire action. The parties’ inclusion of a statement in their confidential settlement agreement that the Orange County Superior Court would have jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms pursuant to section 664.6 did not constitute a request to the court to retain jurisdiction before plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit. See Satya, 17 Cal.App.5th at 967 (“The parties made their Agreement confidential, and nothing in the record indicates any part of it was communicated to the trial court before the dismissals. The parties were required to present to the trial court a proper request to retain jurisdiction for purpose of section 664.6 motions.”).
Plaintiff to give notice.
Plaintiff HAJP, LLC’s Motion to Seal
Plaintiff HAJP, LLC moves to seal four exhibits to the Reyes Declaration filed in support of plaintiff’s concurrent motion to enforce a forbearance agreement and for entry of a stipulated judgment against defendant Plutos Sama Holdings, Inc. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted.
A request to seal must be directed at specific material in the record, specifically identify that material, demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the material and a substantial probability the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing, and be supported by declarations setting forth specific facts in support of the request. See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550(d)-(e), 2.551(a)-(b); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894. To grant a sealing order, the court must find “(1) there is an overriding interest supporting sealing records; (2) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; (3) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.” McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 25, 29; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).
The court has reviewed Exhibits 1, 3, 4 and 5 to the Reyes Declaration and the papers supporting plaintiff’s motion to seal. The court finds: (1) the contractual obligation to refrain from disclosing the terms of the forbearance agreement is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the information contained in the exhibits; (2) this overriding interest supports sealing the exhibits; (3) there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the exhibits are not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) there are no less restrictive means to achieve this overriding interest. Exhibits 1, 3, 4 and 5 to the Reyes Declaration may be filed under seal.
Plaintiff to give notice.