What is a Notice of Settlement?

Notice of Settlement

CRC Rule 3.1385(a) requires plaintiff to immediately file and serve a written notice of settlement.

Motion to Vacate Notice of Settlement

Plaintiff may contend that no legally binding agreement exists to settle her claim, and that this is sufficient to set aside the notice of settlement. (Irvine v. Regents of the University of California (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001-02 (“By alleging a dispute over whether the parties reached a binding settlement, plaintiff demonstrated good cause to restore the case to the civil active list.”).)

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, subdivision (b), “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” However, the application for relief must be made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b); see also, Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495 (relief under Section 473(b) is proper only if the moving party establishes proper grounds for relief and the motion is made within the applicable time limits).) section 473(b) “was never intended to be a ‘catch-all remedy for every case of poor judgment on the part of counsel which results in dismissal.’ [Citation.].” (Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479, 483.) “Courts have limited the application of the mandatory provision to those dismissals procedurally equivalent to defaults.” (Id.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385, requires a plaintiff to notify the court immediately upon settlement of the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(a)(1).) Where a settlement is conditional, the party giving notice must specify the date by which a dismissal is to be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(c).)

“If the settlement agreement conditions dismissal of the entire case on the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the settlement, including payment in installment payments, the notice of conditional settlement served and filed by each plaintiff or other party seeking affirmative relief must specify the date by which the dismissal is to be filed.” (CRC 3.1385(c)(1).) “The only decision before the court at a rule 3.1385 hearing is whether to dismiss the case or restore it to the civil active list.” (Irvine v. Regents of University of California (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001.) If the party required to file a request for dismissal fails to do so within 45 days after the dismissal date in the notice, the court must dismiss the entire case unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed. (Rule 3.1385(b), (c)(2).)

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 may be invoked for the wrongful filing of the notice of settlement. In determining the amount of the sanctions, sanctions “shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, subd. (d).)

Useful Rulings on Notice of Settlement

Recent Rulings on Notice of Settlement

GARCIA VS. RETAIL PROPERTY TRUST

MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OFF CALENDAR NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED 7/13/20

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

TRISTAR INSURANCE GROUP VS. OCAMPO

MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION OFF CALENDAR NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED 6/9/20

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

MATTHEW P QUIRK ET AL VS BERL GOLOMB ET AL

On January 31, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement with Hill, Towbes, and Trader Joe’s. On March 22, 2019, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The cross-complaints remain. Trial is scheduled for December 18, 2020. Motion: Trader Joe’s moves for summary adjudication of two causes of action. (The motion was filed as to the second and fourth causes of action in Trader Joe’s original complaint. Those are express indemnity and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LILIBETH CASTILLO ET AL VS THOMAS J CAHILL

On April 1, 2020, plaintiffs filed their notice of settlement identifying a settlement directly with defendant’s insurer subject to approval of this petition for compromise as to plaintiff Celeste Castillo. Plaintiff Lilibeth Castillo reached an unqualified settlement. Plaintiffs’ original petition was filed on May 20, 2020, and was set for hearing on June 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

On April 21, 2020, a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” was filed. An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for November 6, 2020. 1. Motion for Protective Order Legal Standard “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2025.420(a) [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP LLP VS DUONG HANG, AN INDIVIDUAL

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-100 for: Breach of Written Contract Money Lent Account Stated On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

CANDICE BALISI VS FCA US LLC

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. The only remaining issue was Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, which was originally set to be heard April 28, 2020. (Minute Order 12/16/19.) On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney fees seeking a total lodestar amount of $77,759.50 and a lodestar multiplier of 1.2, for a total of $93,311.40 in attorney fees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. The notice provided that “the settlement agreement conditions dismissal of this matter on the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the date of settlement” and “a request for dismissal will be filed no later than November 15, 2020. On May 29, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice Nasser Sedaghat’s ex parte application to file substitution of attorney for S. David Sedaghat.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAUL GUZMAN VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

procedural history Guzman filed the Complaint on July 23, 2019, alleging two causes of action: Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Magnuson-Moss Act On December 10, 2019, Guzman filed a Notice of Settlement. On June 16, 2020, Guzman filed the present Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. On July 6, 2020, FCA filed an untimely Opposition. On July 8, 2020, Guzman filed a Reply.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

C AYRAPETYAN VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

., alleging four causes of action: Implied/Equitable Indemnity Apportionment of Fault Contribution Declaratory Relief On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case, conditional. On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action as to a Minor. No Opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JUANA EUSTOLIA HERNANDEZ VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement indicating that: (1) the parties agreed to a conditional settlement agreement contingent on the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the date of the settlement; and (2) a request for dismissal would be filed no later than February 12, 2020. The Instant Motion Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 1794(d).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

PORTER RENTS LLC VS. K.D.M. BUILDERS

A notice of settlement was previously filed with the court on July 25, 2019. The Defendant has filed no opposition. Therefore, the motion is granted and the court proposed judgment reflects credits of $2,380 in favor of the defendant based upon his payments under the agreement prior to the default.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA VS IBIERE SECK, ESQ.

BC660135; · Exhibit 2: Notice of Settlement, Reddick v. LACMTA, LASC Case No. BC660135. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) C. Discussion Plaintiffs move for summary judgment “on the grounds that there exists no genuine issue of material fact suitable for trial as to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief, and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to this Cause of Action.” (Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ABRAHAM LOPEZ VS RONALDO LEMUS, ET AL.

On August 29, 2019, a Notice of Settlement was filed. By November 2019 and as of January 2020, no payments have been received by Lopez or his counsel. (Satalino Decl., ¶ 15; Lopez Decl., ¶ 10.) Lopez now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, to enforce the settlement agreement and to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The motion is unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TRAN VS PHAM

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR AJUDICATION OFF CALENDAR- NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED 6/22/20

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

MILTON PACE V. YORK PISTACHIO RANCH, LLC

Also, the court may take judicial notice of settlement agreements and arbitration documents. (see Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 667 [settlement agreement]; Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1386 fn. 8 [arbitration documents].) General Standard of Ruling “A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint by raising questions of law.” (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

PAULINA VEGA VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

The notice of settlement correctly states that each class member has the option to either (a) agree to be a part of the settlement class and thereby obtain standing to object to the settlement or (b) opt out of the settlement class and lose the opportunity to object to the settlement. (See Mayfield v. Barr (U.S. App.D.C. 1993) 985 F.2d 1090; Waller v. Financial Corp. of America (9th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d 579; Rebney v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 14, 2017, alleging three causes of action: Open Book Account Account Stated Reasonable Value The parties stipulated to entry of conditional judgment and settlement on July 25, 2018, and filed a Notice of Settlement on July 26, 2018. On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal without prejudice as to all parties and causes of action, with Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SANCHEZ V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a notice of settlement as required by California Rule of Court 3.1385. Plaintiff is ordered to file a notice of settlement within five court days. Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MICHELE WILLIAMS VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Motion to Transfer and Trial Setting Conference TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on 7/1/20, which was rejected the same day because it was not signed. The court takes today’s Trial Setting Conference and motion to transfer off calendar and sets an OSC re dismissal following settlement for August 12, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CARRUTHERS VS ADAMS MOTOR SPORTS PARK

Regardless of whether oral argument is requested by any attorney or party, moving attorney DeWitt Algorri & Algorri is ORDERED to telephonically appear in Department 7 at 8:30 am on July 7, 2020, to clarify the status of this action in light of the September 6, 2019, Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ROSE ANN ESTELLA VS LOS CERRITOS CENTER, ET AL.

The parties should also be prepared to address whether and to what extent the notice of settlement filed by plaintiff affects the issues in this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ANGIOLINA DERENZIN ET AL VS HAWTHORNE INTERNATIONA CORP

On March 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case with the Court and on October 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Labor Code §218.5 provides: “In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages… the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney’s fees and costs upon the initiation of the action.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NIR EVEN VS HC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL.

On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney fees and costs. On March 13, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing for this motion was continued from March 26, 2020 to July 7, 2020. (Minute Orders, 3/19/20, 4/30/20.) The Court served notice of the continuance on the moving party (Plaintiff) and ordered the moving party to serve notice on all other parties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BANK OF AMERICA VS. MOSAFERI

A notice of settlement was filed on December 6, 2018. On January 2, 2020 Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the notice of settlement and to enter judgment based upon defendant’s default in making payments required by the settlement. No opposition has been filed by the defendant. The Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment in order to enforce the settlement is granted. The proposed final judgment includes credits to the Defendant for the amounts he has paid on the debt following the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 138     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.