On 03/12/2018 SUSAN PORCARO GOINGS filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against STEVEN L LUKATHER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MONICA BACHNER. The case status is Other.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GOINGS SUSAN PORCARO
LUKATHER STEVEN L.
PAICH DAVID F.
DOES 1 TO 10
KING HOWARD E. ESQ.
KING HOWARD ERNEST ESQ.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
MATSON TIMOTHY C.
BANDLOW LINCOLN DEE
8/27/2019: Request for Dismissal
5/18/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE AGAINST THE HONORABLE DAVID SOTELO, DEPARTMENT 40, PURSUANT TO CCP ? 170.6
8/17/2018: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
9/4/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN LUKATHER, DAVID F. PAICH, AND TOTO CORPORATION TO THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTWF SUSAN PORCARO GOINGS
1/16/2019: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Further Responses to First Sets of Document Requests and Produce Documents
6/10/2019: Separate Statement
6/10/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
6/25/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
3/12/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC
5/10/2018: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)
5/14/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC. 170.6)
6/15/2018: Minute Order -
6/15/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
8/24/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
8/24/2018: Minute Order -
6/10/2019: Proof of Personal Service
4/11/2018: NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL -
3/15/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Susan Porcaro Goings (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Withdrawal of Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery Responses); Filed by Steven L. Lukather (Defendant); David F. Paich (Defendant); Toto Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (Of Rom Bar-nissim, Esq. In Support of Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery Responses); Filed by Steven L. Lukather (Defendant); David F. Paich (Defendant); Toto Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (Of Timothy C. Matson, Esq. In Support of Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery Responses); Filed by Steven L. Lukather (Defendant); David F. Paich (Defendant); Toto Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Susan Porcaro Goings (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Susan Porcaro Goings (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Susan Porcaro Goings (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC697611 Hearing Date: November 04, 2020 Dept: 71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
SUSAN PORCARO GOINGS,
STEVEN L. LUKATHER, et al.
Case No.: BC697611
Hearing Date: November 4, 2020
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied.
Plaintiff Susan Porcaro Goings (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order vacating the dismissal of the instant action pursuant to C.C.P. §§473 and 664.6. Plaintiff also moves for an order enforcing the July 25, 2019 Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants Toto Corporation (“Toto”), Steven L. Lukather (“Lukather”), and David F. Paich (“Paich”) (collectively “Defendants”) and ordering Defendants to perform their obligations under the agreement within 30 days. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)
Plaintiff’s 10/29/20 evidentiary objections are overruled.
C.C.P. §664.6 provides as follows: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court… for settlement of the case…, 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.”
On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the entire action with prejudice without requesting the Court retain jurisdiction of the action. (8/27/19 Request for Dismissal.) On August 28, 2019, the Court entered dismissal as requested.
The Court does not have jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6 to rule on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement between the parties. (See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [“While it is true that section 664.6 permits a court to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of the terms of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties in an action, in this case there was no request made for such continuing jurisdiction. [¶] The disposition of this appeal turns on this provision for retention of jurisdiction, which the Legislature added to section 664.6 in 1993. We hold that the effect of that amendment is to provide courts with continuing jurisdiction over parties and their litigation, for the purpose of enforcing their settlement agreement, despite a suit's having been dismissed after the execution of the agreement. We further hold that in order for a court to assert such continuing jurisdiction, the parties' request for retention of jurisdiction must satisfy the same formalities that courts and the Legislature have imposed generally on section 664.6 motions and the settlement agreements such motions seek to enforce. Like section 664.6 motions themselves, requests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the settlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court or in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys, spouses or other such agents. If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.”]; see also Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal. App. 5th 913.)
Here, the Settlement Agreement provided for the Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6. (Decl. of Rothschild ¶3, Exh. 1 [Settlement Agreement §18].) However, in requesting dismissal, the parties did not request the Court retain jurisdiction, and as such, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s motion.
In addition, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal based on Plaintiff’s mistaken belief Defendants intended to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement is untimely brought under C.C.P. §473(b).
C.C.P. §473(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a… dismissal… taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken… Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any… dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the… dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties. However, this section shall not lengthen the time within which an action shall be brought to trial pursuant to Section 583.310.
As set forth above, the Court dismissed this action on August 27, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 13, 2020, well more than six months after the Court dismissed the action.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied.
Dated: November _____, 2020
Hon. Monica Bachner
Judge of the Superior Court