Gonzales v. Ramirez CA3

Filed 2/28/24 Gonzales v. Ramirez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

JONATHAN GONZALES, C093979

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 18FL01318)

v.

HEATHER RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

In a family law action, petitioner Jonathan Gonzales (Gonzales) and respondent Heather Ramirez (Ramirez) signed a stipulation in which Gonzales agreed to dismiss a separate civil action he had filed against Ramirez and others. After Gonzales later refused to perform, the family court granted Ramirez’s motion to enforce the stipulation and dismissed the separate civil action. Gonzales appeals from the order dismissing the civil action. He contends the family court lacked authority to dismiss the civil action because (1) the stipulation was

1

not signed by all the defendants to the civil action, and (2) alternatively, the stipulation was unconscionable. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gonzales filed an action against Ramirez concerning their child in the family court (the family law action). Due to the animosity between Gonzales and Ramirez, the family court held a special session in July 2019 to address their disagreements. At the end of the special session, the family court adopted a two-page stipulation between Gonzales and Ramirez as its order. As part of the stipulation, Ramirez agreed to withdraw a pending domestic violence restraining order request she had filed against Gonzales, and Gonzales agreed to withdraw a pending civil case he had filed against Ramirez, her counsel, and her parents (the civil action). The stipulation was drafted by Gonzales’s family law counsel and signed by Gonzales, his family law counsel, Ramirez, and Ramirez’s counsel. It did not include a mutual release of claims by the parties. Gonzales, who is also an attorney, confirmed to the family court that he reviewed the stipulation, understood its contents, and agreed to be bound by it. Following the entry of the stipulation, Ramirez withdrew her pending domestic violence restraining order request, but Gonzales refused to withdraw the civil action, claiming that Ramirez and other defendants in the civil action had failed to sign a release for attorney’s fees and costs. Ramirez moved the family court to enforce the stipulation pursuant to section 664.6 and to sanction Gonzales. In his tardy opposition to the motion, Gonzales attached a declaration from his counsel in the civil action who claimed he was not present at the special session and, had he been there, he would have included a release in the stipulation as a condition precedent to the dismissal of the civil action. At the hearing on Ramirez’s motion, Gonzales’s civil counsel expressed “grave concern” of exposing Gonzales to attorney’s fees due to the lack of a release.