CARLOS TORRES ET AL VS ALVARADO LLC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674877    Hearing Date: November 30, 2020    Dept: 47

Carlos Torres, et al. v. Alvarado LLC, et al.

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Carlos Torres, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Alvarado, LLC (late opposition).

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants have failed to correct the uninhabitable conditions at the apartment building rented by Plaintiff tenants.

Plaintiffs move to enforce a settlement and request sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement and for sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Enforce Settlement

Late-Filed Opposition

Defendant’s opposition was due on November 13, 2020, given the Court holidays on November 26 and November 27. The opposition was filed a week late, on November 20, 2020.

The Court has exercised its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition. However, the opposition is not based on an argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction to reach, as discussed below. Therefore, considering the opposition did not alter the analysis below.

Analysis

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant Alvarado LLC to comply with its obligations under the parties’ settlement agreement and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant.

CCP § 664.6 provides:

If the 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.

Here, the parties stipulated to a settlement in a writing signed by the parties themselves. (Declaration of Rachel Fishenfeld, Exh. A.) The parties also stipulated that the Court would have “continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Civil Code Section 664.6 to enforce this agreement even if and after this action is dismissed with prejudice.” (Id. ¶ 11.) However, the parties did not file this stipulation with the Court and request that it retain jurisdiction until after the case was dismissed, and therefore the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. (MesaRHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918.) In MesaRHF Partners – a case Plaintiffs do not cite – the court made clear that the parties must file their request for the Court to retain jurisdiction before the case is dismissed:

The City contends that the settlement agreements, which were never presented to the trial court before Mesa, Hill, and Olive requested dismissal, were the request and that request was then communicated to the trial court via the Judicial Council form CIV-110. We disagree.

The settlement agreements were not attached to the Judicial Council form requests for dismissal or otherwise transmitted to the trial court before the cases were dismissed. The City's argument runs directly contrary to our Supreme Court's determination that “the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 … means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.” (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 896 P.2d 171].) The City makes an impassioned plea that parties will be caught in a “‘Catch 22’ where any path to settlement enforcement potentially could be foreclosed to them.’” Given the instruction to litigants in the published cases on this topic, we are not persuaded by the City's argument. Mesa, Olive, and Hill can, for example, file a new action for breach of the settlement agreement. (See, e.g., Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 [9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723].) In this case, 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.

(MesaRHF Partners, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 917-918, bold emphasis added.)

Here, the Court acknowledges that the parties agreed to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction. (Fishenfeld Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 11.) However, the first time that document was filed was on October 15, 2020. The case was already dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2020. Plaintiffs had filed a notice of settlement on July 6, 2020, but that notice did not include any stipulation regarding the Court’s continuing jurisdiction as required.

Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 and for sanctions is DENIED based upon a lack of jurisdiction to hear this motion.[1]

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.