The overwhelming majority of California business cases end in settlement. A surprising number of those settlements spawn a second dispute when one side does not perform. Whether the deal holds often depends on choices made in the hour the agreement is papered: whose signatures appear on it, what words it contains, and whether the court was asked to keep the case alive for enforcement. Get those right and a breach is fixed with a motion. Get them wrong and you are filing a brand-new lawsuit to enforce the deal that was supposed to end the last one.

This guide explains how Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 works, the signature and completeness rules that trip up litigants, the retained-jurisdiction trap, the mediation-confidentiality trap, and the drafting checklist we use to make settlements enforceable. For resolving the dispute before suit, start with our demand letter guide.

What section 664.6 provides

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, parties to pending litigation who settle the case, either in a writing signed outside court or orally before the court, can ask the court to enter judgment on the settlement's terms by motion. The judge acts as fact-finder. No new complaint, no new discovery cycle, no jury. A broken settlement becomes a judgment on a motion schedule, and the full judgment enforcement toolkit then applies.

The signature rules are strict

The statute means what it says. The stipulation must be signed by the parties, and the Supreme Court held that a settlement signed only by counsel did not qualify. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The Legislature softened Levy effective 2021. "Party" now includes an attorney who represents the party and an insurer defending or indemnifying it, but only where the signer acts with the party's express authorization. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) The safe practice has not changed. Obtain the personal signature of each party, or of an officer with documented authority for an entity, on the settlement itself. Not on emails about it.

The agreement must contain its material terms

Section 664.6 lets a court enforce the deal the parties made, not finish one they left open. Mutual consent to all material terms is required. An "agreement to agree" on essential points later is not an enforceable settlement. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810-811.) Payment amounts and dates, the scope of releases, dismissal mechanics, and any confidentiality or non-disparagement obligations belong in the signed document. A short-form deal memo signed at mediation can qualify, if it actually contains the material terms and the signatures the statute requires.

The retained-jurisdiction trap

The summary procedure applies while the litigation is pending. If the case is dismissed, as settlements routinely require, the court loses jurisdiction to enforce unless the parties requested retention of jurisdiction before dismissal, in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440.) The request must conform to the statute as strictly as the settlement itself. My practice: put express retained-jurisdiction language in the settlement agreement, repeat it in the stipulated dismissal, and have the court order it on the record before anything is dismissed.

The mediation-confidentiality trap

Settlements reached in mediation face an additional hurdle. Mediation communications are confidential and inadmissible, and that includes the settlement document itself unless it satisfies Evidence Code section 1123. The document must be a writing signed by the settling parties. It must state that it is admissible or enforceable, or use words to that effect, such as "intended to be binding." The statute is Evidence Code section 1123. A mediated deal memo missing the magic words may be unenforceable no matter how clear its terms. Every mediation settlement should recite that it is admissible, binding, and enforceable under sections 1123 and 664.6.

If section 664.6 is unavailable

A settlement that fails the statute's formalities is not worthless. It is simply a contract, enforceable by a new action for breach or through summary judgment in that action. The cost is time: months or years instead of a motion. Settlements reached before any lawsuit is filed sit outside section 664.6 entirely. Pre-litigation settlements should therefore carry their own enforcement architecture: stipulated-judgment provisions, fee clauses for enforcement, and security for installment deals. Where the deal resolves a monetary claim, consider a section 998 offer once litigation begins instead. Deals reached in arbitration have their own confirmation path. See our comparison of arbitration and litigation.

The enforceability checklist

Personal signatures of every party, or documented signing authority for entities, even though subdivision (b) now permits authorized counsel.

All material terms in the signed writing: amounts, deadlines, releases, dismissal mechanics, confidentiality.

A retained-jurisdiction clause in the agreement and in the request filed before dismissal.

Evidence Code section 1123 language for any mediation settlement: admissible, binding, enforceable.

An attorney's fees clause for enforcement, so a breach pays for its own remedy.

Security for installment deals: a stipulated judgment held in trust, guaranties, or UCC filings where appropriate.

Frequently asked questions

The other side signed the settlement but now refuses to pay. Do I have to sue again?

If the agreement satisfies section 664.6 and the court retained jurisdiction, or the case is still pending, no. You move for entry of judgment per the settlement terms. Otherwise you enforce it as a contract in a new action.

Our lawyers signed the deal memo but the clients never did. Is it enforceable under 664.6?

Possibly, after the 2021 amendment, but only if counsel signed with the client's express authorization, and you may have to prove that authorization. Party signatures remain the safe course.

We settled at mediation on a one-page term sheet. Enforceable?

Only if it contains the material terms, the parties' signatures, and language satisfying Evidence Code section 1123. Otherwise mediation confidentiality may keep it out of evidence entirely.

We already dismissed the case. Can the court still enforce our settlement?

Only if a proper request to retain jurisdiction was made before dismissal in the statutory form. If not, the summary remedy is gone and you are left with a breach of contract action.

What if the settlement left payment timing "to be worked out"?

Open material terms defeat summary enforcement. Courts enforce complete agreements, not agreements to agree. Nail down every essential term before anyone signs.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.

Need help? Contact Kolmogorov Law, P.C. at (909) 235-6420 or visit kolmogorovlaw.com to schedule a consultation with our business litigation team in Irvine, California.