Page 1
Court of Appeal:
There’s No Authority Under CCP §664.6 to Dismiss Suit
Justice Segal Says Superior Court Judge, in Ruling on Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, May Not Declare That All Sides Have Fully Performed and That Nothing Is Left to Be Decided
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that a judge, in ruling on motions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 to enforce a settlement agreement, overstepped his bounds of authority by declaring that all sides had fully performed and dismissing the action.
Sec. 664.6(a) provides:
“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, 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.”
Div. Seven’s Opinion
Justice John L. Segal, writing for Div. Seven, said in an unpublished opinion, filed Thursday:
“In ruling on a motion under section 664.6, the court does not consider whether the parties have complied with the settlement agreement.”
The City of Los Angeles’s Department of Building and Safety (“LADBS”) in 2014 found several code violations—involving rubbish and debris—at the Sun Valley residence of Lionel A. Wyatt which the homeowner did not promptly remedy. The city-imposed fees and surcharges, obtaining a $3,536.95 lien against the property, and the County of Los Angeles, acting as collection agent, added that sum to Wyatt’s tax bill.
Wyatt sued on Sept. 27, 2019. He, the city, and the county entered into a June 1, 2022 settlement under which Wyatt was to pay the city $1,769 and it was to release the lien.
The three parties each made a motion under §664.6.
“So far, so good,” Segal remarked.
Issue Improperly Addressed
However, he continued, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin “proceeded to address whether parties had complied with or breached the terms of the settlement agreement,” commenting:
“That’s where things went wrong.”
Wyatt’s tax bill reflected an outstanding debt of $2,084.19. It should show, in light of the settlement, a debt of $0, Wyatt maintained.
Kin determined that the $2,084.19 figure was unrelated to the amount that had been wiped out under the accord and ordered a dismissal.
That was precisely the right thing to do, the county contended in its April 21 supplemental brief on appeal, setting forth:
“Here, Mr. Wyatt paid the agreed upon sum timely, and accordingly, all fees and interest relating to said LADBS lien were released, and the County removed the amount pertaining to this LADBS lien from the tax roll, and ceased collection thereof. Consequently, the court dismissed the case since all claims had been released and all parties had performed. There were no remaining issues left to adjudicate.”
The city, in its supplemental brief filed the same day, likewise argued:
“Because Mr. Wyatt and the City complied with the exact terms of the June 1 Settlement and had released their claims against one another, the Trial Court properly found the June 1 Settlement satisfied and dismissed the City from the action.”
Segal rejected that reasoning. Noting that the parties are agreement as to the enforceability of the settlement and the terms, he wrote:
“The court cannot modify the terms of the parties’ settlement or enter a judgment that differs from the parties’ settlement. The only question before the court on a motion under section 664.6 to enforce a settlement is whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. If they did, the court may enter judgment pursuant to the agreement’s terms. And that’s all the court can do under section 664.6.”
The jurist went on to say:
“The court should have entered a judgment that required Wyatt to pay $1,769, required the City to accept that amount as full payment of the claims ‘arising from the events described in the petition,’ required each party to bear its fees and costs, required the parties to release their claims, and included the other terms of the settlement agreement. Whether the parties complied with the settlement agreement is an issue for another day.”
Segal’s opinion specifies:
“The trial court is directed to enter a judgment that conforms with the settlement agreement.”
The opinion does not explain why the statutory language providing that “the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement” does not connote a need to determine when “performance in full of the terms of the settlement” has occurred and, if it has, to dismiss based on loss of jurisdiction.
The case is Wyatt v. City of Los Angeles, B334472.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company