Sayta v. Chu
A148823
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Sayta sued Chu, Chin, Lai and Taia over disputes arising from his tenancy; the parties executed a written Settlement Agreement that dismissed the complaint and cross-complaint.
- The Agreement included a confidentiality clause with $15,000 liquidated damages for breach and a paragraph stating the parties would request the court to retain jurisdiction under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.
- The parties dismissed their actions in June 2015; the record contains no evidence the parties ever asked the court to retain jurisdiction or orally requested it before dismissal.
- In April 2016 Sayta moved under § 664.6 to enforce the Agreement, alleging respondents had publicized the settlement (provided it to the rent board) and withheld part of his deposit.
- The trial court denied the § 664.6 motion on the merits; Sayta appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the § 664.6 motion because the parties had not timely requested retained jurisdiction before dismissal; the order denying enforcement was void and remanded to vacate it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court has jurisdiction under § 664.6 to enforce a settlement after the action has been dismissed when the settlement itself contains language requesting retained jurisdiction but no request was presented to the court before dismissal | Sayta argued inclusion of paragraph reserving jurisdiction in the written Agreement (executed during the pendency of the litigation) sufficed to invoke § 664.6 enforcement after dismissal | Respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction because no request to retain jurisdiction was made to the court before dismissal and subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by private agreement | Held: § 664.6 jurisdiction must be requested from the court during the pendency of the case, by the parties, and in writing or orally before the court; a private, uncommunicated reservation in a settlement is insufficient, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction and its order was void |
| Whether inclusion of § 664.6 retention language in a written settlement alone vests the court with retained jurisdiction after dismissal | Sayta: the written stipulation in the Agreement, made while the case was pending, was enough | Respondents: mere contract language cannot confer jurisdiction; parties needed to ask the court before dismissal | Held: incorporation into the settlement without a contemporaneous request to the court does not satisfy the Wackeen requirements; jurisdiction was not retained |
| Whether the appellate court should reach the merits of the enforcement motion (e.g., breach of confidentiality, liquidated damages) | Sayta sought enforcement and liquidated damages under the Agreement | Respondents defended on merits and procedural grounds | Held: Court did not reach merits because lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rendered the trial court’s order void; remanded to vacate the order |
| Whether the trial court could sua sponte retain jurisdiction or set aside dismissal later | Sayta implied the court could enforce despite no prior request | Respondents noted need for motion to vacate dismissal under § 473 if necessary | Held: Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be supplied by consent or silence; remedies under § 473 were left open but not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood, 217 Cal.App.3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App.) (settlement enforcement under § 664.6 unavailable when action no longer pending)
- Wackeen v. Malis, 97 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§ 664.6 may permit retained jurisdiction but parties must request it during pendency, in writing or orally)
- Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills, 115 Cal.App.4th 1004 (Cal. Ct. App.) (settlement language alone cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, 60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App.) (purpose of § 664.6 is summary enforcement without a new lawsuit)
- DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal.4th 1140 (Cal.) (when a stipulated judgment includes dismissal, parties must ask court to retain jurisdiction before dismissal deprives court of jurisdiction)