DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2026-01559179-CU-NP-CJC·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Holcomb vs. Aliso Villa Condominium Assco

Motion to Deem Vexatious Litigant

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
C31
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 2, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHolcomb
DefendantAliso Villa Condominium Assco

Ruling

that. Even if the parties had requested the court to reserve jurisdiction under section 664.6, there would be no settlement of attorney fees to enforce, because terms were not originally agreed upon by the parties. (See Levitz v. The Warlocks (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 531, 535 [“A settlement with open material terms is not a ‘conditional settlement.’ To the contrary, it is not a settlement at all because, like all contracts, it is not binding until the settling parties agree on all its material terms.”].)

Further, plaintiff “must follow the procedures outlined in [California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385] subdivisions (a) and (b) even if the parties settle the case and agree to dismiss under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” (Advisory Com. com., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385.) And, “Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 allows for but does not mandate the dismissal of cases with conditional settlements either upon stipulation of the parties or on the court’s own motion. Subdivision (c) provides an alternative process for cases with a conditional settlement in which dismissal is not sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6” (Id.)

Because the court has lost jurisdiction and the issues are not material to the motion, the court will not decide whether the misrepresentation is material or potentially subject to sanctions, whether a true settlement or only an agreement to agree was reached, arguments concerning enforceability of the 998 offer, and/or whether some other procedure was viable. The court rules only that the chosen course of action was not.

Clerk to give notice.

5 Holcomb Motion to Deem Vexatious Litigant vs. Aliso Villa Continued to 10/2/2025 for parties to comply with Condominium California Rules of Court. Assco 30-2026- 01559179-CU- NP-CJC 6 Boyd vs. Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Fernandez Complaint 30-2025- Defendant/cross-complainant Alejandro Fernandez’s 01523882-CU- Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended PA-CJC Complaint is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part with 10 days leave to amend.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share