Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV07214, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV07214    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Jessica Castillo (Castillo) sues Defendant FCA US LLC pursuant to three Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“lemon law”) claims—breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and failure to repair—on the grounds that the 2018 Dodge Durango (“Subject Vehicle”) purchased by Castillo on November 11, 2018 and manufactured by Defendant FCA US was delivered to Castillo with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, electrical, suspension, transmission, engine and structural system defects, which FCA-approved repair facilities were not able to rectify within the statutorily prescribed or reasonable time.

B. Relevant Procedural History

On December 13, 2023, Castillo signed the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offer to Compromise (998 Offer) in the amount of $99,000.00 and emailed the executed copy to Defendant’s counsel.

On April 29, 2024, the Court held an Order to Show Cause Regarding Dismissal (Settlement) Conference. The Court dismissed the matter without prejudice. The 998 Offer permits the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the offer of compromise under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. (Kohanoff Decl., Ex. 1., 998 Offer, ¶ 7)

C. Motion Before the Court

On August 6, 2024, Castillo filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Sanctions, attaching a facially valid proof of service by electronic mail.

On September 24, 2024 Castillo filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.  

II. Motion

A. Legal Standard

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) 

“Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (J.B.B. Inv. Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 974, 984, as modified Dec. 30, 2014.) “Thus, the statute requires the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Ibid., internal quotations and brackets omitted; Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533 [“In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement”].) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 998 subdivision (b)(1) provides in relevant part: “Not less than 10 days prior to commencement of trial or arbitration (as provided in Section 1281 or 1295) of a dispute to be resolved by arbitration, any party may serve an offer in writing upon any other party to the action to allow judgment to be taken to an award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions stated at the time. (1) If the offer is accepted, the offer with proof of acceptance shall be filed and the clerk or the judge shall enter judgment accordingly.”

B. Analysis

Here, Castillo provides evidence of the 998 Offer between the parties. (Kohanoff Decl., Ex. 1., 998 Offer.) The 998 Offer is signed by Castillo’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel. As Defendant did not oppose the motion, there is no dispute that there was a valid and enforceable settlement agreement between the parties made pursuant to section 998.

Per the terms of the 998 Offer, Defendant stated that it would perform its obligations within sixty days of acceptance. (Kohanoff Decl., Ex. 1., 998 Offer, ¶ 2.) Castillo accepted the 998 Offer on December 13, 2023. Thus, Defendant was to perform its obligations by February 11, 2024. It is undisputed that Defendant has failed to disburse any portion of the settlement funds. (Kohanoff Decl. ¶ 7.) Additionally, it is undisputed that, despite multiple requests from Castillo’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel has failed to provide information regarding surrender of the subject vehicle. (Kohanoff Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2.)

As Castillo has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, entry of judgment is proper.

Castillo also requests attorney fees and costs for bringing the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. (Mot., p. 6, Kohanoff Decl. ¶ 11.) As noted by Castillo, the delay in this matter, failure to respond to repeated communications, and the further failure to file an opposition, support the request to find that sanctions in the minimal amount of $2,588.00 are justified, under that code section.

Castillo’s request for attorney fees and costs of $2,588.00 is therefore granted.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Jessica Castillo’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed judgment within five court days. An OSC re: entry of judgment will be scheduled on October 28, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.