Case Number: EC041984    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: A

Shadow Hills Estates v Sardo

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Calendar: 1
Case No: EC041984
Date: 8/22/14

MP: Defendants, Sebastian Sardo and Eugenie Sardo
RP: Plaintiff, Shadow Hill Estates, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order setting aside dismissal and enforcing the settlement

DISCUSSION:
This case arose from the Plaintiff’s claim that there was an agreement to provide it with an easement over the Defendants’ property. The purpose of the easement was to provide access to a residential development.
The parties resolved the dispute through a settlement. The Plaintiff filed a dismissal of the entire action with prejudice on August 10, 2006.

This hearing concerns the Defendants’ motion to set aside the dismissal so that the settlement may be enforced under CCP section 664.6. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to perform its obligation to construct a roadway, repair fencing or gating, construct slope repairs, and grade and pave the easement.

Under CCP section 664.6, the Court may enforce a settlement agreement in a pending litigation. Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 810.
When the case is not pending, 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. Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 429, 433. In order for the Court to retain jurisdiction, the parties must make a request for the Court to retain jurisdiction. Id.
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. Id. Like section 664.6 motions, requests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Id. 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. Id.
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. Id.

This case is not pending because it was dismissed on August 10, 2006. A review of the Court file reveals no request for the Court to retain jurisdiction made before August 10, 2006. There is no minute order indicating that the parties had appeared and made an oral request. There is no signed writing filed with the Court in which the parties requested the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement.
The Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on July 10, 2006. The notice did not include a copy of the settlement agreement and it does not include a request to retain jurisdiction under CCP section 664.6. Further, the Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal on August 10, 2006. It does not include a request to retain jurisdiction under CCP section 664.6.

Accordingly, the enforcement of the settlement agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit because the Plaintiff dismissed this action on August 10, 2006 without requesting that the Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement.
In order to seek relief under CCP section 664.6, the parties must make a request that the Court retain jurisdiction either orally to the Court or in a writing signed by the parties, not their attorneys. Since the parties did request that the Court retain jurisdiction, the Court does not have any jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Therefore, the Court will deny the Defendants’ motion because this is not a pending action and there was no request made to the Court to retain jurisdiction under CCP section 664.6 before the action was dismissed on August 10, 2006.

RULING:
DENY motion.