As many former litigants know, there is nothing more frustrating than feeling the relief of finally reaching a settlement only to have to engage in further litigation because the opposing party violated the terms of the settlement agreement. This is particularly true in the area of probate disputes, where actions pit family members against each other and can lead to further litigation and significant emotional distress. All parties to Mesa argued that the use of the above “magic words” on the claim forms filed by the companies filed with the court should be interpreted as a valid request to the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce violations of settlement agreements under Article 664.6 of the CCP. [6] However, the Court disagreed, as none of the procedural requirements were met. The applications for dismissal were signed by lawyers and not by the parties, they were drafted at the same time as the registration of the dismissal rather than before the registration of the dismissal, and the agreement between the parties to transfer jurisdiction to the court was not validly communicated to the court, either in writing or orally. [7] If the opposing party does not comply with the terms of the settlement, one way to deal with such a breach of the settlement agreement is to file another breach of contract. However, this option is not ideal, as the applicant will likely incur additional costs and cause delays. The reason one usually settles in the first place is to stay out of court; A new trial would bring them back immediately, and they would have to start from scratch. The Mesa Court explained what the parties must do to meet the strict requirements of section 664.6 for a court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreements. You can either: (1) file a clause signed by a lawyer and a draft order attaching a copy of the settlement agreement (signed by the parties with an express request to retain jurisdiction), or (2) file a provision signed by the parties and a draft order acknowledging the settlement and expressly requesting that the court have jurisdiction over enforcement. comparison. If the parties do not take any of these steps, they must initiate a new lawsuit for violation of the settlement agreement in order to enforce it.

But is that sufficient to ensure that the tribunal`s jurisdiction under section 664.6 of the CCP is maintained? Unfortunately, this is not the case. For both settlement agreements, the parties filed motions to dismiss the court, both of which contained narrow variations of the apparent “magic words.” The first stated: “The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under article 664.6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” The second stated: “The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement under Code 664.6 of Civil Procedure.” [3] In both cases, the dismissal was effected by the Registrar “as requested”. [4] Recognizing that not all civil actions are equal, paragraph (c) provides that the parties (and not their lawyers) must sign the written agreement for settlements involving civil harassment complaints, family or estate code lawsuits, or matters before juvenile or dependency courts. It can be difficult and stressful if the guilty party refuses to pay the settlement amount. If you are having trouble enforcing a settlement agreement, please contact San Jose`s experienced personal injury attorneys at Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, L.L.P. for a free initial consultation. However, Sayta confirmed that the expedited procedure under section 664.6 is only available if the parties request that the trial court retain jurisdiction before the court, in writing or orally, while the case is still pending before the dismissal. In Sayta, the appellant relied on the provision of the confidential settlement agreement that the parties had agreed to enforce the agreement under section 664.6. The Court of Appeal found that this confidential agreement did not constitute a “request” to the trial court to retain jurisdiction as required by section 664.6. `[T]he court lost its substantive jurisdiction when the parties voluntarily dismissed the case as a whole. Since jurisdiction ratione materiae cannot be transferred by consent, waiver or estoppel of proceedings, the court cannot “retain” the jurisdiction it has lost.

(Sayta, op. cit., citing Viejo Bancorp, Inc.