Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9031    Hearing Date: March 06, 2020    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Background

Plaintiff Envirotech Environmental Inc (“Plaintiff”) commenced this breach of contract action on February 1, 2017 against defendant Craig Gibson (“Defendant Gibson”) and Does 1 through 25. On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint naming additional defendants Delores Marie Allen, Joel Rodney Mason, and JRM Builders & Development (“additional defendants”).

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed these additional defendants without prejudice. On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff and these additional defendants stipulated that the dismissal be vacated and replaced with a dismissal with prejudice.

On May 30, 2019, a Stipulation Re Settlement was filed with the court. As set forth in the Stipulation, Counsel for the parties were to file dismissals of the operative complaint and cross-complaint with prejudice within seven business days, and Counsel for Envirotech was to file a release of lis pendens and the release of mechanic’s lien against Gibson’s property. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant Gibson was to pay Plaintiff $15,000 over 30 monthly payments of $500 each due on the 15th of every month beginning June 15, 2019. (Stipulation Re Settlement, filed 5/30/19.)

On June 6, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed the operative complaint with prejudice. On June 18, 2019, Gibson dismissed the cross-complaint with prejudice.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the stipulation re settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel states under penalty of perjury that Plaintiff has released the lis pendens. (Koorstad Decl. ¶ 7.) However, Plaintiff has not received any payment pursuant to the stipulation re settlement from Defendant Gibson. (Skelton Decl. ¶ 2.)

Gibson has not filed any opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, “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.”

“Section 664.6 empowers a court to enforce a settlement agreement by way of a summary procedure if certain requirements are satisfied. In order to take advantage of the statute’s expedited procedure, a party must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (; 664.6) or was made orally before the court.”

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917, [internal citation omitted].) “‘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.’” (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].) “‘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.’” (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].)

“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.’” (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].) “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’” (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].)

Discussion

Plaintiff and Defendant Gibson entered into a written agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, filed with the court on May 30, 2019, during the pendency of the case. (Koorstad Decl., Ex. 1.) Each party and their respective attorneys signed this stipulated agreement. (Ibid.) Paragraph 6 of page two of the agreement memorializes the parties’ stipulation and joint request that the Court retain jurisdiction over this settlement agreement. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Court has the authority to enforce the settlement agreement entered into between the parties per CCP ; 664.6.

The dismissal against defendant Gibson is vacated. Defendant has failed to timely pay Plaintiff the amount due under the Stipulated Settlement and therefore, is in default on the terms of the settlement agreement. Judgment is proper against Defendant Gibson in the stipulated amount of $15,000. The judgment is entered this date.

Conclusion and ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Envirotech Environmental, Inc.’s motion for enforcement of the stipulation re settlement is GRANTED. Judgment is entered for $15,000.00 against Defendant Craig Gibson.

Moving Party to give notice and file proof of service.

DATED: March 6, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court