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

TOROVERDE, INC. VS. ELEMENT 7, INC.

The motion is off calendar based on the Notice of Settlement filed on November 4, 2020. An OSC re Dismissal on Settled Case is set for February 26, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

PORTFOLIO VS. ROSAS

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the entire Case on May 21, 2020. On September 4, 2020 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enter Judgment pursuant to the settlement agreement based upon Defendant’s failure to make payments pursuant to the settlement agreement. Defendant has filed no opposition. The Plaintiff’s Motion to enter Judgment is granted. The Plaintiff’s proposed order granting the motion and the proposed judgment will be signed by the court.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ARRIETA V. ASAS GROUP, INC.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories OFF CALENDAR – Notice of Settlement filed

  • Hearing

NINA UGWUMBA VS YOCE KARIN CERVANTES ET AL

The Court notes that a notice of settlement has been filed and no prejudice will result from granting this motion. Accordingly, this unopposed motion to be relieved is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff and all parties who have appeared. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

CARLOS TORRES ET AL VS ALVARADO LLC ET AL

Plaintiffs had filed a notice of settlement on July 6, 2020, but that notice did not include any stipulation regarding the Court’s continuing jurisdiction as required. Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 and for sanctions is DENIED based upon a lack of jurisdiction to hear this motion.[1] Moving Party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2020 ___________________________________ Randolph M.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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 Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat’s ex parte application to file substitution of attorney for S.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ERBABIAN V. NIGRO

Based on the Notice of Settlement filed on 11-10-20 under ROA No. 213 and the court’s 11-16-20 Minute Order, Plaintiff’s and Cross-Defendant’s (Abraham Gregory Erbabian) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (filed on 7-9-20 under ROA No. 169, and scheduled for hearing on 11-24-20) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (filed on 7-10-20 under ROA No. 181, and scheduled for hearing on 11-24-20) are off calendar.

  • Hearing

TONY TUONG, ET AL. VS VANESSA CRISTINE GONZALEZ

Subpart (2) of section 877.6 provides, “In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service.

  • Hearing

FELICITAS PADRON ET AL VS ABRAAM KHARAZYAN

On December 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On August 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce a settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (conditional) is scheduled for November 20, 2020. PARTIES’ REQUESTS Plaintiffs ask the Court to enforce the terms of the written settlement with Defendant.

  • Hearing

ESTATE OF ANGELINA MORENO

On 4/5/10, after mediation, the parties filed a notice of settlement re Deborah's petition for removal. The parties agreed to Oscar resigning as the executor and Deborah being appointed. There is a minute order of 4/7/10 indicating that a status conference was taken off-calendar due to the settlement notice but it appears no hearing or order occurred actually approving the settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ANDRES ASCENCIO, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

On July 1, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement of entire case. On August 17, 2020, at the regularly-scheduled OSC re: dismissal, there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff, nor any communication with the Court why there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On August 18, 2020, Defendant FCA US LLC filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SICARIOS VS. STAFFMARK HOLDINGS, INC.

Notice of Settlement In the fourth paragraph on page 1, the phrase "for civil penalties" should be inserted after the opening phrase "The Settlement covers claims . . .” In the sixth paragraph on page 1, the phrase "enhancement payments" should be replaced with "an enhancement payments to Plaintiff” In the seventh paragraph on page 1, the date September 1, 2020 should be inserted, and the words “known and unknown" should be deleted.

  • Hearing

SVETLANA KRAVCHENKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PERLA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the FAC on April 8, 2019, alleging five causes of action: Violations of Labor Code § 226 Failure to pay minimum wage Failure to provide rest periods Waiting time penalties Unfair business practices (B&P §§ 17200) On June 12, 2020, Mars filed a Notice of Settlement of all claims between Plaintiffs and Mars. Also on June 12, 2020, Mars filed an Application for the Issuance of an Order Determining Good Faith Settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DISCOVER BANK VS LUEVANOS

The Court "must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed." Id. However, where a notice of conditional settlement is filed and served, it extends the case disposition time to 45 days after the dismissal date specified in the notice. Id., rule 3.1385(c)(1)-(4).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

VILMA FIGUEROA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS G & D MANAGEMENT & APARTMENT BUILDING L.,, ET AL.

(a)(2) In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement . . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MEDS DIRECT RX OF NY LLC ET AL VS NOAH JUSSIM ET AL

This evidence appears to refer to the negotiations that resulted in the November 24, 2015 notice of settlement, which later fell apart. However, the claims in the SAC focus on the events after the November 2015 settlement and December 2015 dismissal of the first Enteral lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that with the filing of the second Enteral action in February 2016, they learned that Jussim had been acting contrary to their interests in the negotiations.

  • Hearing

ERBABIAN V. NIGRO

Based on the Notice of Settlement filed on 11-10-20 under ROA No. 213, Plaintiff’s and Cross-Defendant’s (Abraham Gregory Erbabian) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions Per CCP § 2033.290(d) (filed on 7-8-20 under ROA No. 175, and scheduled for hearing on 11-17-20) is off calendar.

  • Hearing

JEONG VS. KIM

Notice of Settlement Entire Case filed.

  • Hearing

CITIBANK VS. RIZARRI

* TENTATIVE RULING: * On March 5, 2020 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case that indicated that a dismissal would be filed no later than February 24, 2021. Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Set Aside the Notice of Settlement and to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulation entered by the parties at the time of the entry of their Stipulation Agreement that was filed with the Notice of Settlement..

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

TORRES VS. NUNEZ

On December 23, 2019 counsel for Plaintiff (David Yadidi) filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case. That pleading indicated that the settlement was conditional and that the case would be dismissed by February 28, 2020. To date, no dismissal has been filed. On July 30, 2020 counsel for the Plaintiff filed a motion to be relieved as counsel asserting that his relationship with the client (Plaintiff Torres) had broken down to the extent where no communication was possible.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

VANESSA AYON, , AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS A PROXY FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS THERMAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire case, condition upon the Court’s approval of PAGA settlement. On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for approval of PAGA settlement. ANALYSIS: I. Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement A. Legal Standard 1. The PAGA The PAGA is “a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TERESA VARGAS PEREZ VS THE PARSONS GROUP INC

The Notice of Settlement is therefore approved. The motion seeks a hearing date for the court’s consideration of final approval of the settlement, as well as counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs, and the service and release award to the representative plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LUCIO GONZALEZ BAHENA VS PRIORITYWORKFORCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

That statute provides in pertinent part: (a)(2) In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

YAPHET HARRIS VS EUROPEAN AUTO OUTLET, INC., ET AL.

In the notice of settlement, the Church acknowledges the Synod’s rights to the Church Property, Apartment, and Russian Hall “are superior to those of the [Church]” and “should the [Church] be found to be owners of such properties, the [Church] would hold the same in trust for the Synod.” The Synod’s Complaint (Synod Complaint) asserts causes of action for (1) declaratory relief and (2) constructive trust. The Synod Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MORFIN VS CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL INC

In addition, the definition of released parties in the Notice of Settlement does not match and is much more broad including “officers, directors, shareholders, partners, members, customers, agents and employees, and all parents, subsidiaries and related or affiliated entities, etc.” (Notice of Settlement 5-6 ¶ 8.) ¶H.5.e. requires the notice to include a description of the release. It is in the notice, at ¶ 5-6 but as described above differs from that in the Settlement.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 147     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.