Mesa RHF Partners, et al. v. City of L.A., No. B288335 (D2d1 Mar. 29, 2019)
Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 permits parties to stipulate to a court’s entry of judgment on the terms of a settlement—including a judgment of dismissal. It further permits the parties to request that the court retain jurisdiction over any enforcement. But both the settlement and request need to be signed by the parties themselves, not just their lawyers.
The parties (or maybe the lawyers) in these three zoning cases messed that up. They got client-signed settlement agreements, which included an agreement to continuing jurisdiction. But instead of stipulating to have the settlements entered as judgments of dismissal with retained jurisdiction, they tried to take shortcuts. They filed standard forms requesting voluntary dismissals, which referenced that they wanted the court to retain jurisdiction, but did not attach the agreements or request that the court enter judgment. The clerk then dismissed the cases.
When disputes over the settlements later arose, Plaintiffs moved the court to enforce. Although both Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to that procedure, the trial court held, and the Court of Appeal affirms, that it had no authority to do so. The clerk had dismissed the cases before the trial court ordered jurisdiction retained, and at a time where no client-signed document had been submitted. That deprived the trial court of any jurisdiction to decide to retain jurisdiction. And thus without ongoing authority under § 664.6.
It’s not the end for Plaintiffs, though. They can enforce the settlements in a separate action for breach of contract.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment