Levitz

Levitz v. the Warlocks

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 531·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 338·2007 Daily Journal DAR 3373·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2659
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 2007B186707California1,589 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

Former California Rules of Court, rule 225(c) (since renumbered Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385) provided that when parties settle an entire case, .the plaintiff must either (1) notify the court of the settlement and file a motion to dismiss the action, or (2) show good cause why the case should not be dismissed. (Former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 225(c).) Jeff Levitz appeals from the court’s involuntary dismissal of his complaint under former California Rules of Court, rule 225 (rule 225) for filing a show cause declaration that the court deemed too vague. We reverse because we find rule 225 inapplicable.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In April 2004, appellant Jeff Levitz sued his former bandmates in the music group, The Warlocks, for breach of contract and related causes of action. He alleged he had joined the group in 2000, and had played guitar and written songs for the band until it fired him in 2002. By his complaint, he sought payment of money he claimed the group owed him.

In early May 2005, appellant’s counsel filed with the court notice of a tentative settlement. Counsel told the court, “The Parties to the instant action have agreed in principle to a settlement…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.