Levitz v. the Warlocks

Opinion

RUBIN, Acting P. J.

Former California Rules of Court, rule 225(c) (since renumbered Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385) provided that when parties settle an entire case, .the plaintiff must either (1) notify the court of the settlement and file a motion to dismiss the action, or (2) show good cause

[533]

why the case should not be dismissed. (Former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 225(c).)

1

Jeff Levitz appeals from the court’s involuntary dismissal of his complaint under former California Rules of Court, rule 225 (rule 225) for filing a show cause declaration that the court deemed too vague. We reverse because we find rule 225 inapplicable.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In April 2004, appellant Jeff Levitz sued his former bandmates in the music group, The Warlocks, for breach of contract and related causes of action.

2

He alleged he had joined the group in 2000, and had played guitar and written songs for the band until it fired him in 2002. By his complaint, he sought payment of money he claimed the group owed him.

In early May 2005, appellant’s counsel filed with the court notice of a tentative settlement. Counsel told the court, “The Parties to the instant action have agreed in principle to a settlement of this action in its entirety. All parties respectfully request that this Court set an OSC re: Dismissal for forty-five (45) days from the date of this notice in order to allow the parties to memorialize their agreement in writing and execute all necessary documentation.”

The court agreed, and set a hearing on an order to show cause for late June. Before the hearing date, appellant, with respondents’ apparent consent, requested a 30-day continuance to give the parties time to overcome a “few remaining hurdles” to a final settlement. Appellant told the court, “Settlement of the instant action in its entirety involves multiple parties and complex rights relating to royalties and publishing arising in the music business. H] [And for those reasons] the parties have not been able to memorialize in writing, their oral agreement in principle at this time . . . .” Appellant asked for a continuance to July 25, 2005. The court permitted the delay but ordered “no further continuances will be granted. If a dismissal is not filed by 7-19, all parties to file detailed declarations on 7-20-05.”