An object lesson on CCP 664.6

Litigants reach a settlement in mediation and reduce it to writing. The settlement agreement provides the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. Plaintiff's counsel then signs and files a request for dismissal on Judicial Council form CIV-110, which states: "Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement per C.C.P. § 664.6." A deputy clerk entered the dismissal "as requested" on the same day.

Later, a dispute arises regarding performance of the settlement. One of the parties files a Section 664.6 motion to enforce the settlement in the court where the underlying action was pending. Does that trial court have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement?

Evidently not, according to the recent case of Mesa RHF Partners v. City of Los Angeles, 2019 DJDAR 2793. The trial court was without jurisdiction because the request for dismissal was signed only by counsel, not the "parties." In order to meet the strict requirements of Section 664.6, the litigants themselves must request retained jurisdiction. So, what can we learn from this case and how is jurisdiction retained?

CCP 664.6.

Section 664.6 authorizes "parties" to pending litigation to stipulate in writing, or orally before the court, the terms of their settlement. Section 664.6 further provides that, "[i]f 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." Should a party breach that agreement, the other party may bring a motion before the trial court to enforce the terms of the settlement, even after dismissal of the case. Section 664.6 was enacted to provide an efficient alternative to the cumbersome process of filing a new lawsuit to enforce a settlement.

The Mesa RHF Partners Case

Mesa RHF Housing Partners, Hill RHF Housing Partners, and Olive RHF Housing Partners filed actions against the city of Los Angeles and other governmental entities challenging various provisions of the city's establishment of business improvement districts. The parties reached settlements whereby the city agreed to "undertake to make [Mesa, Hill, and Olive] whole" for assessments made against properties owned by them when the business improvement districts were formed.

The parties' settlement agreements contained the following language: "The Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement." Plaintiffs' counsel filed requests for dismissal on Judicial Council form CIV-110 that contained the following language counsel inserted into the document: "Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement per C.C.P. § 664.6." A deputy clerk entered the dismissals "as requested" on the same day.

A dispute subsequently arose regarding the duration of the city's obligation to remit assessment payments. Plaintiffs brought motions to enforce the settlements, which the trial court heard and denied on the merits. Plaintiffs appealed.

The appellate court affirmed, but on different grounds. The trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the motions. The requests for dismissal were insufficient to retain jurisdiction because they were not signed by the parties, only counsel.

Due to its streamline and summary process, the courts have required strict compliance with all elements of the statue in order to invoke the power to enforce settlements. Under the holding in Wackeen v. Malis, 97 Cal. App. 4th 429 (2002), the request for retention of jurisdiction must comport to the three requirements of Section 664.6: (1) made during the pendency of the action, not after the case has been dismissed; (2) by the parties themselves; and (3) in writing or orally before the court.

In Levy v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 4th 578, 586 (1995), the California Supreme Court determined "the term 'parties' as used in section 664.6 ... means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record." Here, the requests for dismissals were not signed by the "parties" or even a single "party." They were signed only by counsel and therefore insufficient to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlements.

How to insure compliance with the unforgiving requirements of 664.6? The opinion makes two suggestions to invoke Section 664.6 before the case is dismissed. The first is by filing a stipulation and proposed order and attaching a copy of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement must be signed by the parties and include language to the effect that they request the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Alternatively, by filing a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties themselves noting the settlement and requesting the trial court retain jurisdiction under Section 664.6. As the court noted, "The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed."

Unanswered Questions

The Mesa RHF Housing Partners opinion observed the settlement agreements were not attached to the Judicial Council form requests for dismissal or otherwise transmitted to the trial court before the case was dismissed. Had the settlement agreements been attached, would the outcome have changed? The decision also pointed out that the requests for dismissal were signed only by counsel. What if the parties had signed the request for dismissal instead? Would that be sufficient? Arguably, both approaches may meet the three requirements of 664.6, but were not expressly approved in the opinion. In addition, these approaches present practical challenges. Will the clerk's office accept a request for dismissal with a settlement agreement attached? And, the Judicial Council form request for dismissal was not designed for the multiple signatures of the parties. For those reasons, and in light of the uncertainty of complying with 664.6, a better practice would be to invoke either one of the two safe harbor suggestions made in the Mesa RHF Housing Partners decision.

Conclusion

The Mesa RHF Housing Partners holding is significant because it disapproves a widespread practice followed by many litigators when they request the court to retain jurisdiction in the Judicial Council request for dismissal form. This is the second published opinion in 16 months providing an "object lesson" on how to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, and the dire consequences for failure to follow its strict requirements.