Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 19STCV29678, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV29678, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV29678 Hearing Date: October 2, 2023 Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Unoposed Motion to Enforce the Settlement is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

CCP section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement against defendant 1 Oak Remodeling, Inc. for the remaining balance of $2,160. Defendant made periodic payments toward the $10,000 settlement but stopped making payments in November 2022.

“[W]here the plaintiff has filed a voluntary dismissal of an action …, the court is without jurisdiction to act further …, and any subsequent orders of the court are simply void.” (Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Auth. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89, (internal quotes omitted).) The result is different where a signed, written settlement agreement (or oral settlement before the court) states the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because that agreement could be enforced under C.C.P. § 664.6. (See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439-440; Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 310, 326—court had continuing jurisdiction to consider attorney fees and costs motions after dismissal where settlement agreement provided court retained jurisdiction to enforce agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6.))

C.C.P. § 664.6(a) states: “If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement.” Counsel may sign the request on behalf of their clients (C.C.P. § 664.6(b)(2) (added eff. 1/1/21)). The request should be made while the court still has jurisdiction. (Wackeen v. Malis, supra, 97 CA4th at 433; see Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 962.)

Here, pursuant to paragraph 3 of the parties’ settlement agreement, Defendant was to pay Plaintiff as follows: $10,000: $2,500 within 7 business days of the receipt of a fully executed agreement, and thereafter make twelve consecutive monthly payments in the amount of $625 to commence 30 days/a month after the initial payment. (Rose Decl., ¶ 2; attachment ¶ 3.)

Further, the parties stipulated that the Court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the settlement terms. (5/6/21 Stipulation.) The Court also signed an order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (5/6/2021 Order.)

Defendant made periodic payments, but stopped making payments in November 2022. (Rose Decl., ¶ 3.) The balance still owed is $2,160. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Therefore, as the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.