Page 9 - Los Angeles Vol 5 No 3

LARS JOHNSON | Mediation
Enforceability of 664.6 Settlements after
Mesa
OnMarch 29, 2019, the court of appeal is- sued its ruling in Mesa RHF v. City of Los Angeles, 2019 WL 1416925. e court upheld the trial court’s order, denying a motion to en- force a settlement agreement pursu- ant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. e case is important because it demonstrates a signi cant pitfall related to settlement agreements in- tended to be enforceable under 664.6. Anyone who has led a standard request for dismissal using judicial council form CIV-110 (i.e., just about everyone handling civil cases), should
know about this case.
In Mesa, the parties reached a set-
tlement agreement which included an agreement that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement per CCP 664.6. e plainti led a request for dismissal using judicial council form CIV-110, adding in the following language: “Court shall re- tain jurisdiction to enforce settlement per C.C.P. §664.6.” A deputy clerk entered the dismissal “as requested.”
Down the Road
Several years later, a dispute arose between the parties. Mesa led a mo- tion to enforce the settlement pursu- ant to 664.6. e trial court denied the motion on the merits. Mesa appealed.
e court of appeal a rmed the trial court’s order denying the motion. It did so not on the merits, but on the basis that the court lacked jurisdic- tion to hear the motion. Speci cally, the court held that the parties failed to properly preserve jurisdiction fol- lowing the dismissal. e court rea-
soned that a trial court can retain ju- risdiction to enforce a settlement per 664.6 only if requested to do so “by the parties.” Here, the request for dis- missal was signed by an attorney (as it almost always is), not by the parties. us, the court lost jurisdiction to hear the motion.
So how can a party dismiss a case while also preserving the ability to en- force a settlement under 664.6?
ankfully, the court of appeal of- fered a couple suggestions. A party can le a stipulation and proposed order attaching a copy of the settle- ment agreement which includes lan- guage agreeing to 664.6 enforcement. Alternatively, the parties can le a stipulation and order, referencing the settlement, and requesting that the court retain jurisdiction. Neither of these options involve the use of form CIV-110.
Lingering
One question that remains a er Mesa is can attorneys still use the judicial council form to dismiss an action while preserving jurisdiction to enforce a settlement pursuant to 664.6?
e answer to that question is not clear.
For example, 664.6 requires that the parties sign the settlement agree- ment. At a minimum, you would need to show the court that this has been done. Will the clerk allow you to at- tach a settlement agreement to the judicial council form? Is there some other mechanism to get that agree- ment before the court at the time of ling the form? Also, the parties are required to request that the court re-
AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com
tain jurisdiction. e current form does not include signature lines for multiple parties. Can the parties modify the form by inserting such signatures anyway? Will an attached agreement requesting that the court retain jurisdiction do the trick?
We just don’t know for sure. At this point, it is probably best to use one of the two approaches suggested by the court in Mesa.
is case is an important reminder that each party must personally sign thesettlementagreementandperson- ally request the court retain jurisdic- tion to enforce a settlement pursuant to 664.6. Alternatively, the parties can put the settlement and request to extend jurisdiction on the record in court.
e good news is that, in many cases (such as the typical personal in- jury case), 664.6 enforcement is o en not important. at is because, by the time the plainti les a dismissal, the parties have fully executed their obli- gations under the settlement (i.e., the defendant has paid over the settle- ment proceeds and the plainti has signed a release agreement and is now dismissing the case). Still, to the ex- tent any party in your case is required to perform under the settlement a er the case is dismissed, 664.6 can be an important tool.
Lastly, remember that the failure to comply with 664.6 does not mean your settlement is unenforceable. It simply means you
do not have the op-
tion of requesting
summary enforce-
ment by motion.
Lars Johnson is a neutral for Signature Resolution, mediating a wide range of civil cases including those related to personal injury, property damage and insurance disputes. A graduate of Georgetown University and Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, he has served in the United States Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps as both trial and appellate counsel and later worked in private practice representing plaintiffs in high-pro le and high-stakes trials. Johnson was a three-time nalist for CAALA’s Trial Lawyer of the Year award. He was also one of the youngest mem- bers ever admitted to the American Board of Trial Advocates.
9