Mesa RHF Partners v. City of LA

California Court of Appeal Mar 29, 2019 No. B288355Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreements under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 because the requests for retention of jurisdiction were not signed by the parties themselves.

Issues

Whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 when the request for retention is signed only by counsel and not the parties themselves.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.”

Filed 3/29/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MESA RHF PARTNERS, L.P., B288355 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BS140224)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

HILL RHF HOUSING B288356 PARTNERS, L.P., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. BS138416)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Affirmed. Reuben Raucher & Blum, Timothy D. Reuben, Stephen L. Raucher, and Hana S. Kim for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Beverly A. Cook, Assistant City Attorney, and Daniel M. Whitley, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________________ Mesa RHF Housing Partners (Mesa), Hill RHF Housing Partners (Hill), and Olive RHF Housing Partners (Olive) appeal from orders denying motions to enforce settlement agreements under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.1 The trial court denied those motions on the merits. We affirm the trial court’s orders, but we do so based on our conclusion that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the motions. BACKGROUND Hill and Olive filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office on July 18, 2012 challenging various provisions regarding the City’s establishment of the Downtown Center Business Improvement District (DCBID) by ordinance of April 10, 2012. On January 13, 2013, counsel for Hill and Olive filed a notice of settlement of entire case stating that the parties had settled the case on December 20, 2012. The parties’ settlement agreement contained the following language: “The Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.” On

1 Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

Mesa RHF Partners v. City of LA

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

AI Brief