Woodhouse Development v. Kogok Home Engineering CA2/4

Filed 11/13/25 Woodhouse Development v. Kogok Home Engineering CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

WOODHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, B341321 LLC, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21GDCV00406)

v.

KOGOK HOME ENGINEERING, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of David S. Lin and David S. Lin for Defendant and Appellant. Lo & Lo, Kelvin J. Lo, and Brendan T. Molloy for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Kogok Home Engineering, LLC appeals from the trial court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement between Kogok and plaintiff Woodhouse Development, LLC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.1 Kogok contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Woodhouse filed this unlawful detainer action against Kogok in March 2021. In September 2021, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement. The agreement stated in part, “Landlord agrees to file a request for dismissal, explicitly providing for the Court’s retained jurisdiction pursuant to this paragraph, within a week of the full execution of this Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that this Agreement is entered into pursuant to [ ] Section 664.6, and that the Court in which the Action is now pending may retain jurisdiction over the Parties and the Action itself to enforce this Agreement and the terms of this Agreement until performance in full of the terms of the Agreement, including entry and enforcement of judgment for damages and possession of the Property or any appropriate orders upon motion of any Party pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and [ ] Section 664.6.” A week later, Woodhouse filed a request for dismissal on Judicial Council form CIV-110 stating, “Dismissal with explicit reservation of jurisdiction under C.C.P. Section 664.6” and attaching a copy of the settlement agreement. A deputy clerk entered the dismissal “as requested” on the same day.