On 08/30/2017 CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NICOLE LEITER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN J. KRALIK. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Van Nuys Courthouse East
Los Angeles, California
JOHN J. KRALIK
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC.
LEITER NICOLE DANIELLE
LEITER NICOLE D
FREED KENNETH JAY
Court documents are not available for this case.
at 08:30 AM in Department T; (Osc Re Dismissal; Case Dismissed/Disposed) -Read MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department T; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Case Deemed Settled) -Read MoreRead Less
Order-Show Cause; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department T; Case Management Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons-Issued; Filed by CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: LC106145 Hearing Date: September 03, 2020 Dept: T
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.,
NICOLE LEITER, etc.; et. al.
CASE NO: LC106145
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT PER CCP §664.6; REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS OF $2,473.65
September 3, 2020
[TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Motion to Enforce Settlement per CCP §664.6 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau (“Plaintiff”) moves to set aside the dismissal and moves to enforce a settlement agreement per CCP §664.6. Plaintiff further requests fees and costs in enforcing the settlement agreement.
“[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.” (In re Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 867.) “If requested by the parties,” however, “the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” CCP § 664.6. “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.)
Parties do not confer post-dismissal jurisdiction upon trial courts just by including language in a settlement agreement for retaining jurisdiction, but instead must unambiguously request the court to retain jurisdiction, before dismissal, and the court then may retain jurisdiction. Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010-11; Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440.
“A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 “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.” (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 (Wackeen).) The “request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.” (Ibid.)” Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal App 5th 913, 917.
This action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on March 14, 2018 as a result of settlement of the entire action, as stated in the Notice of Settlement filed on February 1, 2018. Neither the request for dismissal nor the notice of settlement attached a copy of the settlement agreement. Further, neither filing stated that the case was to be dismissed with the Court retaining jurisdiction under CCP §664.6, let alone there being any document signed by the parties stating the same being filed prior to the dismissal. It is not until the instant motion, post-dismissal, that Plaintiff presents to the Court that the parties stipulated to the Court retaining jurisdiction under CCP §664.6. The request to enforce the settlement is improper and the Court did not retain jurisdiction under CCP §664.6. Retention of jurisdiction by the Court must take place before the dismissal.
Where a settlement agreement provides the court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, but the dismissal fails to provide for retained jurisdiction, plaintiff's remedy is to move to vacate or modify the dismissal under CCP § 473(b) for “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” Basinger v. Rogers & Wells (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 16, 21. However, the plaintiff has not requested this relief. There is no CCP section 473 relief in the notice. There is no declaration of attorney fault. The motion is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED, ____________________ TO GIVE NOTICE.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases