This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/25/2019 at 12:51:22 (UTC).

BLANCA CASTILLO VS GWP REAL ESTATE

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6913

  • Filing Date:

    01/12/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CASTILLO BLANCA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

GWP REAL ESTATE

ROXSAN OPTIMUS LLC DOE 1

UNITED VALET PARKING INC. DOE2

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF BLOOMBERG BENSON & GARRET

BENSON JOHN LEONARD

Defendant Attorneys

GASPARIAN MARAL I. ESQ.

GRAHN MICHAEL D.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. GRAHN; PROPOSED ORDER.

12/19/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. GRAHN; PROPOSED ORDER.

ORDER

12/19/2017: ORDER

Minute Order

12/19/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/22/2018: Minute Order

ORDER

6/22/2018: ORDER

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIM0E TO HEAR MOTION; ETC

6/22/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIM0E TO HEAR MOTION; ETC

Notice of Settlement

11/16/2018: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order

11/20/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

11/20/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/15/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

1/12/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/9/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

6/7/2016: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/28/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

6/19/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

7/19/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/10/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT UNITED VALET PARKING, INC.

9/26/2017: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT UNITED VALET PARKING, INC.

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((Conditional Settlement)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (Conditional S...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Final Status Conference) of 11/20/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice of Settlement (Of Entire Case); Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
36 More Docket Entries
  • 06/28/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2016
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2016
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2016
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2016
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Blanca Castillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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

BLANCA CASTILLO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

GWP REAL ESTATE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC606913

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN ORDER AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

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 sscdept31@lacourt.org 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

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where UNITED VALET PARKING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant