Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: BC682984, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority’s unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.

Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to this Court within 10 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Massachusetts Education Financing Authority (“MEFA”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order to enter judgment because Defendant Alexander L Ross (“Ross”) (“Defendant”) defaulted on the terms and conditions of the parties’ settlement stipulation. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §664.6.)

On November 09, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court for damages in the amount of $25,149.19 to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account. (Decl. of Rohan ¶2.)

On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement. (Decl. of Rohan ¶3, Exh. A.) Pursuant to ¶10 of the agreement, if Defendant defaulted under the Settlement Agreement, then Plaintiff could obtain a judgment for the outstanding balance, pre-judgment interest and costs through declaration and order. (See Decl. of Rohan ¶¶3-4, Exh. A at ¶10.)

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Defendant.

C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.” (C.C.P. §664.6(a).)

Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a C.C.P. §664.6 motion on the basis of declarations or other evidence. (Malouf Brothers v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284; Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 [stating court may resolve reasonable disputes over terms of settlement agreement but may not modify terms from what was agreed to by parties].)

Plaintiff submitted evidence that Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Settlement Agreement that is signed by the parties and contains a provision authorizing this Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6. (Decl. of Rohan ¶2, Exh. A.) Accordingly, Plaintiff submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement and is therefore entitled to an order enforcing the settlement.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant last made a payment on September 9, 2014. (Decl. of Rohan ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on March 16, 2023, he last sent a cure letter to Defendant, stating that Defendant had ten days to cure the defect. (Decl. of Rohan ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant did not cure the defect and Defendant has not made any other payments pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Decl. of Rohan ¶¶6-7.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares the principal outstanding balance on Defendant’s account is $10,552.09. (Decl. of Rohan ¶8.) Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court