Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/23/2019 at 08:11:55 (UTC).

XIN XIN XIAO VS WEI WILIAM CHEN

Case Summary

On 02/05/2016 XIN XIN XIAO filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against WEI WILIAM CHEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9340

  • Filing Date:

    02/05/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

NEW AC FASHION

XIAO XIN XIN (CINDY)

XIAO XIN CINDY

Defendants and Respondents

CHEN WEI WILIAM

DOES 1-10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WEST THEMIS LAW PC

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

2/5/2016: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

2/5/2016: COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/18/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE

2/26/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE

PLAINTIFF X1N XIN XIAO'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/13/2016: PLAINTIFF X1N XIN XIAO'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

4/15/2016: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

4/15/2016: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

5/9/2016: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

5/17/2016: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ; ETC

5/20/2016: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ; ETC

Unknown

5/27/2016: Unknown

Unknown

5/27/2016: Unknown

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/20/2016: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

10/7/2016: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

12/20/2016: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Minute Order

1/11/2017: Minute Order

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2016
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2016
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2016
  • ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2016
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Proceeding continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2016
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 04/15/2016
  • Demurrer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2016
  • DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2016
  • REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2016
  • PLAINTIFF X1N XIN XIAO'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Xin (Cindy) Xiao (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC609340    Hearing Date: April 8, 2021    Dept: 24

Plaintiff Xin Xin Xiao’s motion to enforce settlement is DENIED.

On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff Xin Xin Xiao filed the instant breach of contract action against Defendant Wei Wiliam Chen. The First Amended Complaint alleged five causes of action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, money had, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On June 20, 2016, Defendant filed an answer. On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a dismissal with prejudice.

On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce the settlement per CCP § 664.6. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP section 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.”

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37;Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1262.) In ruling on a motion under § 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

Discussion

Plaintiff failed to properly retain jurisdiction. Generally, courts lose subject matter jurisdiction when an action is voluntarily dismissed. (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1009; Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 966-968 [no subject matter jurisdiction to enforce settlement per CCP § 664.6 because parties failed to ask court to retain jurisdiction before case dismissed]; Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918 [same].) CCP section 664.6 provides for the retention of personal jurisdiction to enforce the settlement “if requested by the parties.” The stipulation as to jurisdiction must conform to the same requirements necessary for enforcement of the settlement agreement. (See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440.) It is not enough simply to provide for such retention in the settlement agreement. (See Mesa RHF Partners, L.P., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918.) The request to retain jurisdiction must be filed with the court. “[T]he 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.” (Ibid.)

On December 20, 2016, this suit was dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal did not indicate a retention of jurisdiction. Plaintiff never provided the above settlement agreement (with the retention of jurisdiction) to this Court. Thus, the Court never retained jurisdiction per section 664.6. Thus, the Court lost subject matter jurisdiction over this suit when Plaintiff filed the dismissal with prejudice. Therefore, the Court cannot enforce the instant settlement agreement through section 664.6.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Note that non-statutory remedies are available for breach of a settlement agreement. (See Smith v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1374.) Moving party is ordered to give notice.