Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV14502, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14502    Hearing Date: October 1, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-1-24 c/f 7-9-24 c/f 4-26-24

Case 23STCV14502

Trial Date: Not Set/Not At Issue

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Linda Dobbs, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Mihael Beattie

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Fraud Intentional Misrepresentation

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Fraud Negligent Misrepresentation

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Michael Beatty and Defendant Linda Dobbs, Individually and as Trustee of the Donald Charles Beattie Living Trust entered into a settlement agreement in 2020. Plaintiff alleges fraud in the settlement agreement due to misrepresented payments of property taxes in the amount of $39,746.11. On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Fraud Intentional Misrepresentation, and Fraud Negligent Misrepresentation.

RULING: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Requests for Judicial Notice: Granted.

Defendant Linda Dobbs, Individually and as Trustee of the Donald Charles Beattie Living Trust submits a demurrer to the complaint on grounds the settlement agreement requires any enforcement of the action occur under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff in opposition maintains the stipulation lacks any term for entry of judgment, thereby providing the court jurisdiction to consider this new action. Defendant in reply reiterates the lack of jurisdiction and basis for abatement of the action.

On July 17, 2020, the court (Department 50) entered the stipulation of the parties, whereby the court retained jurisdiction to enforce any terms. Plaintiff dismissed the complaint on September 24, 2020.

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) A court may sustain a demurrer on grounds of abatement, where “There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd. (c).)

The stipulated dismissal conditioned on the entry of the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 renders the subject action an improper second challenge to the enforceable settlement agreement available within Department 50. Nothing in the opposition establishes any right to bring a new cause of action given the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 as opposed to a dismissal without retention of jurisdiction. (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918; Howeth v. Coffelt (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 126, 134-135; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008-1011.) The court finds no basis for leave to bring a new suit beyond the scope of the stipulation. (Howeth v. Coffelt, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at pp. 134-135.)

The court declines to consider the substantive challenges presented given the lack of facts establishing jurisdiction.

The demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

The court also orders the parties to file a notice of related cases with Department 50 within 10 days of this order.

Defendant to give notice.