Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01196453, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff Alex Zavala’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff Alex Zavala moves to enforce the settlement agreement against Defendants Deena Chacon, Jered Jay Jerotz, and 3 Degrees, LLC.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

However, “the request for retention of jurisdiction must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440.)

A trial court may deny a motion to enforce settlement where the parties had dismissed the case without first requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. (Mesa RHF Partners v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918.) The “request [to retain jurisdiction] must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.” (Id. at p. 917.)

Parties may request the court retain jurisdiction by:

1. attaching the settlement agreement to the Judicial Council form requests for dismissal, or

2. filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the parties’ settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under Section 664.6; or

3. filing a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6.

(Id., at p. 918.) While the process need not be complex, “strict compliance demands that the process be followed.” (Ibid.)

Here, there is nothing in the record to show that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. On 03/17/2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, (ROA #82), and the court set a hearing on an order to show cause re: dismissal on settled case for 08/01/2022, (ROA #87).

On 05/24/2022, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of all causes of action against Defendants Darlene Lopez and EXP Realty, LLC, and those defendants were dismissed on that same date. (ROA #90.) The request for dismissal did not attach the parties’ settlement agreement or request that the court maintain jurisdiction pursuant to Section 664.6.

The hearing set for 08/01/2022 was continued to 09/19/2022. (ROA #99.) However, On 09/19/2022, the parties failed to appear at the hearing on the order to show cause re: dismissal on settled case and thus, the court ordered the remainder of the action dismissed without prejudice. (ROA #104.)

The record shows no stipulation and proposed order or other request for this court to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the parties’ settlement. Enforcement of the settlement agreement must thus be accomplished by the filing of a separate suit for breach of the settlement agreement. (See Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306 [“ Thus, even when the summary procedures of section 664.6 are not available, a party can still seek to enforce a settlement agreement by, among other things, prosecuting an action for breach of contract.”].)

The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.