Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-202-01195455, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s (Mannheim Investments, Inc.) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 (Motion), filed on 9-7-22 under ROA No. 96, is DENIED

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 states, “If 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.”

Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918 (Mesa), states, “A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘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.’ [Citation.] The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’ [Citation.] [¶] The parties ask us to construe Mesa, Hill, and Olive's requests for dismissal as section 664.6 requests for the trial court to retain jurisdiction. We will not do so. [¶] The request to the court that it retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 must be made by the parties. ‘[A] request that jurisdiction be retained until the settlement has been fully performed must be made either in a writing signed by the parties themselves, or orally before the court by the parties themselves, not by their attorneys of record, their spouses, or other such agents.’ [Citations.] The Judicial Council form CIV-110 in each case was signed only by an attorney for Mesa, Hill, and Olive. [¶] The City contends that the settlement agreements, which were never presented to the trial court before Mesa, Hill, and Olive requested dismissal, were the request and that request was then communicated to the trial court via the Judicial Council form CIV-110. We disagree. [¶] The settlement agreements were not attached to the Judicial Council form requests for dismissal or otherwise transmitted to the trial court before the cases were dismissed. The City's argument runs directly contrary to our Supreme Court's determination that ‘the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 . . .  means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.’ [Citation.] The City makes an impassioned plea that parties will be caught in a ‘ “Catch 22” ’ where any path to settlement enforcement potentially could be foreclosed to them.” ’  Given the instruction to litigants in the published cases on this topic, we are not persuaded by the City's argument. Mesa, Olive, and Hill can, for example, file a new action for breach of the settlement agreement. [Citation.] In this case, the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed.” (Footnote 3 omitted.)

The Motion seeks “. . . an order enforcing the Settlement Agreement dated April 15, 2022 . . . .” (Motion; 2:3-8.)  Plaintiff submits the Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims (Agreement) between Defendant, Automotive Enterprises, Inc. dba Carrio Motor Cars, Carrio Motor Cars, Inc., and Wang Xiu Wei effective on 4-15-22. (Carbajal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.)  Section 3.3 of the Agreement states, “The releases contained in this Section 3 do not waive or release any Party's right to enforce this Agreement or claims for breach of this Agreement, and nothing herein may be construed to prevent a Party from bringing suit against another Party that breaches its obligations under this Agreement.” (Carbajal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.)  Section 12 of the Agreement provides, “This Agreement is made and executed in, and shall be interpreted, enforced, and governed by the laws of the State of California, exclusive of its conflicts of law principles. Any action to enforce this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court, for the State of California, County of Orange.” (Carbajal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.)

Under Mesa, the Agreement did not request the court to retain the jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  That is, the Agreement does not contain a clear and unambiguous for the court to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Mannheim Investments, Inc.) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 filed on 9-7-22 under ROA No. 96.

Carrio Motor Cars, Inc. is to give notice.