Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: YC072005, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: YC072005 Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: M
Superior Court
of California County of Los
Angeles Southwest
District Torrance Dept. M |
|||
NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-4, |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.: |
YC069317 |
vs. |
|
[Tentative]
RULING |
|
KATRINA
HOWARD, et al., |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: March 1, 2023
Moving
Parties: Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4
Responding Party: None
Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to
Conditional Stipulated
The court considered the moving
papers. No opposition was filed.
RULING
The motion is GRANTED. The dismissal entered on September 29, 2017 is
set aside and vacated. Judgment is
entered in the amount of $25,298.68 in favor of plaintiff and against defendants
Katrina D. Howard and John Howard a/k/a Johnny L. Howard.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2017, National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust filed a complaint against Katrina Howard and John
Howard.
On September 29, 2017, plaintiff
filed a notice of conditional settlement.
The court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice and
retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664.6.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to CCP §664.6: “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.”
“Section 664.6 was enacted to
provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract
without the need for a new lawsuit.” Chan v. Lund (2010)
188 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165-66 (quoting Weddington Productions,
Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809-10). Under CCP
§664.6, a court may determine disputed factual issues regarding the settlement
agreement and even permits the court “to entertain challenges to the actual
terms of the stipulation, that is, whether there actually was a settlement . .
. and to interpret the terms of the settlement agreement.” Fiore
v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal. App. 3d 561, 566.
DISCUSSION
Under CCP §664.6, plaintiff National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4 requests an order to set aside and vacate
the dismissal and enter judgment against defendants Katrina D. Howard and John
L. Howard in the amount of $25,298.68.
On September 17, 2017, the case was
dismissed, and the court retained jurisdiction under CCP §664.6.
Plaintiff explains that the parties
entered into a conditional stipulated settlement on June 15, 2017. The stipulation required installment payments
from defendants to plaintiff as follows:
$269 due on May 22, 2017; 200 monthly payments of $101.50 beginning on
June 22, 2017; 102 monthly payments of $101.50 beginning on February 22, 2034;
and a final payment due $95.04 on August 22, 2042, totaling $31,017.04. In consideration, plaintiff would dismiss the
action without prejudice, pursuant to CCP §664.6.
The parties also agreed that in the
event defendants failed to make any payment by its respective due date, and
upon declaration of plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney of said default, the
court shall set aside the dismissal without prejudice, resume jurisdiction over
the matter, and enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in
the amount of $30,582.04, plus costs of $870, less any credits. According to plaintiff’s counsel, defendants
paid $6,153.36 and stopped making payments as of August 22, 2022. See Stephanie J. Boone decl. and Exh. 1
(Conditional Stipulated Settlement).
The motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice
of ruling.