If You Want The Court To Retain Jurisdiction, Ask The Court.
"This case offers an object lesson on the requirements to invoke section 664.6 and the consequences of failure to comply with those requirements." Sayta v. Chu, A148823 (1/5 11/29/17) (Bruiniers, Jones, Simons).
Plaintiff/Apppellant Sayta settled a tenant dispute with the landlord Chu, entering into an agreement with a confidentiality provision, and a liquidated damages clause. The settlement agreement specifically stated: "[T]he Court may nevertheless retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement, until such time as all of its terms have been performed by the parties, as the parties requested this specific retention of jurisdiction." Following the execution of the settlement agreement, the case was dismissed.
Sayta sought to invoke section 664.6 to enforce the liquidated damages clause after he believed Chu had breached the agreement. He was unsuccessful, for lack of jurisdiction. As the Court of Appeal explained, the parties to a settlement agreement are unable to confer jurisdiction on trial courts by including language in a settlement agreement, "but not asking the court to retain jurisdiction."
Best line: "Sayta fails to explain how the court could have fathomed a 'request' for retained jurisdiction, much less granted it sub silentio from a secret handshake of the parties."
Comments