Satya v. Chu, No. A148823 (D1d5 Nov. 29, 2017)
Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 permits the parties to stipulate to the entry of a judgment as part of the settlement of a case. The parties can also ask the court to retain jurisdiction over a case for the purposes of enforcing its terms. But in order to have the court to retain jurisdiction, the parties need to actually ask it to do so at the time the judgment is entered, and get the court to sign off. When, as in this case, the parties stipulate to the entry of a settlement judgment, but fail to ask the court to retain jurisdiction, the court loses jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment. The fact that the parties stipulated that the court could retain jurisdiction in their settlement agreement just isn’t enough.
Appeal dismissed.
Showing posts with label stipulated judgments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stipulated judgments. Show all posts
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Be Careful what You Stip to ...
Needelman v. Dewolf Realty Co., Inc., No. A141306 (D1d3 Aug. 18, 2015)
To buy some time in his apartment, Plaintiff settled an unlawful detainer case with his Landlord by entering a stipulated judgment. The judgment let him stay in the apartment, rent free, for several additional months, conditioned on his abiding by the building’s house rules. The judgment further provided that, if the landlord received a verified complaint that Plaintiff broke the rules, the landlord could enforce an unlawful detainer through ex parte application and kick him out, that any property left behind would be deemed abandoned, and that plaintiff waived any action for wrongful eviction arising out of the tenancy. When, two months later, fellow tenants complained that Plaintiff appeared naked, banging on his door, at 4 am, Landlord did just that.
To buy some time in his apartment, Plaintiff settled an unlawful detainer case with his Landlord by entering a stipulated judgment. The judgment let him stay in the apartment, rent free, for several additional months, conditioned on his abiding by the building’s house rules. The judgment further provided that, if the landlord received a verified complaint that Plaintiff broke the rules, the landlord could enforce an unlawful detainer through ex parte application and kick him out, that any property left behind would be deemed abandoned, and that plaintiff waived any action for wrongful eviction arising out of the tenancy. When, two months later, fellow tenants complained that Plaintiff appeared naked, banging on his door, at 4 am, Landlord did just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...