On 01/12/2016 BLANCA CASTILLO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against GWP REAL ESTATE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
DOES 1 THROUGH 25
GWP REAL ESTATE
ROXSAN OPTIMUS LLC DOE 1
UNITED VALET PARKING INC. DOE2
LAW OFFICES OF BLOOMBERG BENSON & GARRET
BENSON JOHN LEONARD
GASPARIAN MARAL I. ESQ.
GRAHN MICHAEL D.
12/19/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. GRAHN; PROPOSED ORDER.
12/19/2017: Minute Order
6/22/2018: Minute Order
6/22/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIM0E TO HEAR MOTION; ETC
11/16/2018: Notice of Settlement
11/20/2018: Minute Order
3/15/2019: Minute Order
2/9/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
6/7/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
6/28/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
6/19/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
7/19/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
8/10/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
9/26/2017: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT UNITED VALET PARKING, INC.
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((Conditional Settlement)) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (Conditional S...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Final Status Conference) of 11/20/2018); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement (Of Entire Case); Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Continued by Court) -Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIESRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC606913 Hearing Date: January 21, 2021 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
GWP REAL ESTATE, ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC606913
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN ORDER AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
January 21, 2021
Plaintiff Blanca Castillo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants GWP Real Estate, et al. for damages arising from Plaintiff’s slip and fall on the defendants’ premises. On 6/7/16, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Roxsan Optimus, LLC (Roxsan”) as Doe 1, and 7/19/17, filed an Amendment to Complaint naming United Valet Parking, Inc. (“United Valet”) as Doe 2. Thereafter, on 11/16/18, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case providing the parties entered into a conditional settlement, and a request for dismissal would be filed no later than 1/30/19. On 5/2/19, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal dismissing the entire action of all parties and causes of action with prejudice.
On 9/11/20, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce settlement agreement against Roxsan and United Valet (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to CCP § 664.6.
Plaintiffs asserts the parties entered into a settlement agreement in late 2018 whereby Plaintiff would receive a total of $27,500, with Roxsan to pay $22,500.00 and United Valet to pay $5,000.00. Plaintiff provides Roxsan paid its portion, $22,500.00, but United Valet has not paid their portion of the settlement. Plaintiff states multiple efforts have been made to collect the $5,000 payment from United Valet, but the payment to date has not been made. Plaintiff contends United Valet must be ordered to pay the sum of $5,000 as stated in the settlement agreement.
Pursuant to CCP § 664.6: “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.”
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) To enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)
“Parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Accordingly, the settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.” (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.)
Pertaining to a request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6, the request ‘ “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.]” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.)
The request to the court that it retain jurisdiction under section 664.6, thus, must be made by the parties. (Id. at 918.) Furthermore, the request should be made while the court still has jurisdiction. (see Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 962 [because “parties failed to request, before dismissal, that the trial court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, or alternatively seek to set aside the dismissals, … the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain” motion to enforce settlement (emphasis in original)]; Mesa RHF Partners, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918 [same].) Normally, the court loses subject matter jurisdiction when an action is voluntarily dismissed, with or without prejudice, and it has no power to enforce a settlement agreement thereafter. (see Sayta, 17 Cal.App.5th at 966-68; see also Mesa RHF Partners, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918.)
In Mesa RHF, the Court held that the parties must personally request that the court maintain jurisdiction under Section 664.6. (Mesa RHF Partners, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918.) They can do this by either appearing before the court or submitting a written request signed in their own hand. (Id.) Their counsel cannot appear for them, nor sign for them. (Id.) A request for dismissal, in which counsel for one party states that the court will retain jurisdiction, is simply not sufficient. (Id.)
Here, the settlement agreement submitted by Plaintiff is signed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. (Mot. Schinke Decl. Exh. 1.) However, the agreement does not appear to be signed by Defendants. (Weddington Productions, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 797-98.)
Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to establish the court has jurisdiction over this matter to grant the motion to enforce settlement. While the agreement states, “[t]he Settling Parties further agree, acknowledge and stipulate that the Court in the Action shall retain jurisdiction over the Settling Parties to determine any motion brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§664.6 & 664.7,” this settlement agreement was not transmitted to the court before the action was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff on 5/2/19. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant this motion under CCP § 664.6 because Plaintiff dismissed the action without a party expressly requesting the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. (Mesa RHF Partners, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918.)
As the Mesa Court explained, “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.” (Id.) Therefore, it is not enough simply to provide for such retention in the settlement agreement. (Id.) Because under Mesa, the requirements of § 664.6 were never fulfilled, this court no longer has jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice is effective.
Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement is denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2021
Hon. Thomas D. Long
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases