Before Gauss, it was already common knowledge that the lawyer and any bailiff who wishes to obtain an enforceable settlement under section 664.6 should do the following: But there is a potential problem – the court will lose its jurisdiction to enforce the settlement once the case is dismissed (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 CA4th 429, 440). Settlement agreements often require one or more of the parties to do something beyond the forty-five day limit. For example, monetary settlements often require payments over months or even years. If the entire case is dismissed, the court will lose jurisdiction to enforce the settlement in accordance with section 664.6. In order to ensure that a request to execute a transaction can fulfill its function, there are other procedural hurdles to overcome. Parties and counsel should be aware that this wording (i.e., the court should retain its jurisdiction under CPC 664(6) is essentially meaningless if it is contained in a settlement agreement and a motion for termination, as held by the Court of Appeal in mesa RHF Partners, L.P.c. The city of Los Angeles [2] demonstrates. Secondly, Article 664.6 applies only to two forms of agreements: (a) oral agreements registered in open session before a competent judicial officer and agreed upon by the parties themselves, and not by the lawyers [Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 C4th 578, 586], or (b) written agreements signed by the parties themselves, with limited exceptions as in certain cases of construction defects (Article 664 of the Code of Civil Procedure). 7). Be detailed. A settlement will not be executed in accordance with § 664.6 unless all material conditions are in place.

Getting it wrong about excessive inclusivity helps minimize the possibility of controversy on this point. Once all interested parties have signed the settlement agreement, one tactic used by the party who brought the action is to submit to the court a termination request form with a statement that reads: ”The court remains competent to enforce the settlement agreement under CCP 664.6.” The purpose of CPC 664.6 is to inform the court that it has the authority to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. But is this sufficient to ensure the Court`s jurisdiction under Article 664.6 of the CCP? Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are two ways to remedy this situation. The first is to apply for an order before the dismissal of the proceedings, which reserves the competence to execute the settlement after the dismissal of the proceedings. (Wackeen, loc. cit.). It is important that the court remains competent before the case is dismissed, otherwise it will not have the power to reserve its jurisdiction thereafter (Wackeen, at p. 440). The application for a reservation of jurisdiction addressed to the court must be signed in writing by the parties themselves orally by the parties themselves (Wackeen, at p. 440).

Most settlement agreements state that they are enforceable under section 664.6 and that the court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, but this wording is insufficient unless the court actually makes an order reserving jurisdiction prior to dismissal (Wackeen, loc. cit.). A caveat – often a request for a reservation of jurisdiction is signed by the lawyers, but Wackeen states that it must be signed by the parties themselves (Wackeen at 440). As soon as the court decision is registered, the whole case can certainly be dismissed, even if it is dismissed with prejudice. Avoid ambiguity. Express confirmation by a party that it understands the terms of the settlement and agrees to be bound by it is required. The Mesa court noted that ”due to its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is a prerequisite for relying on the court`s power to impose a settlement agreement.” The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreements because: (1) the dismissal claims were made by the parties` counsel and not by the parties, and (2) the parties` claims in the settlement agreements were not filed in court because they were not filed before or with the dismissals. For both settlement agreements, the parties submitted release application forms to the court, both containing variations close to the apparent ”magic words.” The first stated, ”The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under CCP Section 664.6.” The second stated: ”The court remains competent to enforce the settlement agreement under the Code of Civil Procedure 664.6.” [3] In both cases, the dismissal was recorded by the Clerk ”as requested.” [4] Fortunately, due to the importance of the settlements and the need to ensure greater security in the unification process, California legislators took steps to resolve these conflicts by enacting CPP §664.6 in 1981.

.