Elliott vs. Thai

operative pleading), the only claim asserted against her. (See 4/24/26 Minute Order [ROA 125].) Defendant Chang therefore is no longer a pending defendant in this action. However, a judgment has not yet been entered in Defendant Chang’s favor, and the court is not exercising its discretion at this time to render a judgment as to Defendant Chang only. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 579 [trial court has discretion to render judgment against a defendant and allow the action to proceed against others whenever a several judgment is proper].)

Plaintiff to give notice.

7 Elliott vs. Thai Motion to Enter Stipulated Judgment

The court DENIES Defendants NAM THANH THAI and TRUNG THANH THAI’s Motion to Enter Stipulated Judgment. As explained below, this action is no longer pending and the court did not retain jurisdiction before the action was dismissed by the parties. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the request.

Defendants request that the court enter a stipulated judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (See Zotti Decl., ¶¶ 6 & 8 & Exhs. 1-2.) The settlement agreement contains a clause where the parties agree that this court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement under section 664.6. (Id., Exh. 1 at § 13.)

Importantly, the parties dismissed this action with prejudice over a year-and-a-half ago. (See Request for Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice, filed by Plaintiff on 2/13/25 [ROA 96] and Request for Dismissal of Cross- Complaint with Prejudice, filed by Cross-Complainants on 2/13/25 [ROA 99].)

The parties appear to have used an older version of the Judicial Council “Request for Dismissal” form (CIV-110), when dismissing both the complaint and cross-complaint with prejudice. (ROAs 96 & 99.) The current version of mandatory CIV-110 (revised on 1/1/25) includes a dismissal

without prejudice and with the court retaining jurisdiction under section 664.6. (See current CIV-110, § 1(a)(3).) Here, the parties did not file the current form and check the box for the court to retain jurisdiction.

Nor have Defendants shown that, prior to dismissing this action with prejudice, either party ever made a request to the court to dismiss without prejudice and retain jurisdiction to enforce under section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor is there any record of the court approving any request to retain jurisdiction upon dismissal under Section 664.6.

Section 664.6 begins, “If parties to pending litigation stipulate ... for settlement ..., the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6(a), emphasis supplied.) Section 664.6 also states, “If the parties to the settlement agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6(a), emphasis supplied.)

Cases interpreting section 664.6 conclude that the language of the statute requires the parties to make an express request to the court to retain jurisdiction prior to dismissal. (See e.g., Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439 [“unless the parties presented the trial court with a proper request to retain jurisdiction for purposes of section 664.6 motions, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case when it decided Moran's motions.”]; DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1140, 1155–1156 [“where a stipulated judgment includes a dismissal, the parties must ask the trial court to retain jurisdiction before the dismissal deprives the court of that jurisdiction.”’]; Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v.

City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917 [a request must be made to the court to retain jurisdiction and that “request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.”].)

Here, while the parties may have had a private agreement that the court retain jurisdiction, the record does not show that the parties ever made an express request to the court to retain jurisdiction prior to the parties’ dismissing this case with prejudice.

As such, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. (See, e.g., Wackeen, 97 Cal.App.4th at 437 [“When there is a voluntary dismissal of an entire action, the court's jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter terminates.”].)

The motion is therefore DENIED.

Moving Defendants to give notice.

9 Doe vs. Brown Motions to Compel Further Responses to 1. Special Interrogatories 2. Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs) 3. Requests for Admissions (RFAs)

1. Special Interrogatories

The court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Plaintiff JANE DOE’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant JAMAL BROWN to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One).

First, the court notes that it’s not clear which special interrogatories are at issue in Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to state whether the motion is directed to any particular interrogatory or to all of the interrogatories contained in Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). (See Not. Of Mot., filed 5/26/26 [ROA 429].) By contrast, the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MP&As”) (ROA 430) lists the following under the heading “Specific Deficiencies”: Special Interrogatories, Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21. The accompanying Separate Statement (ROA 415) also lists Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21. However, the accompanying Declarations

9