Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 21STLC00056, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STLC00056, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.

3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.

Case Number: 21STLC00056 Hearing Date: September 19, 2023 Dept: 26

State Farm v. Moody, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT SHAUN MOODY IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,746.93 AND $500.00 IN COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

On January 5, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action against Defendant Shaun Moody (“Defendant”). On January 17, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the Court retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment on June 12, 2023, which initially came for hearing on July 17, 2023. Plaintiff did not appear at that time but Defendant did and represented that he would reach out to Plaintiff regarding a payment plan. (Minute Order, 07/17/23, p. 3.) The Court continued the hearing to September 19, 2023. (Ibid.) No opposition has been filed to date.

Legal Standard

The instant motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, which states in relevant part:

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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) Prior to January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The current statute provides that “parties” includes “an attorney who represents the party” and an insurer’s agent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) The settlement agreement here complies with the statutory requirements set forth above because it was signed by both parties and Plaintiff’s counsel. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, p. 3.)

Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction must be made in writing, by the parties, before the action is dismissed for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [“If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.”].) The parties’ request for retention of jurisdiction complies with these requirements because it was made in writing to the Court before the action was dismissed. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, ¶3.) Therefore, the Court finds that the parties’ settlement agreement is enforceable, and the request for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction is proper, under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The settlement agreement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $14,046.93. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶2.) Defendant was to make an initial payment of $5,000 by 6/29/22, and make monthly payments beginning on 7/29/22 until the settlement is paid in full. (Ibid.) The Agreement provided that if Defendant failed to make a timely payment, and the payment is not made within 14 days after Plaintiff mails a letter of default, Plaintiff would be entitled to have any dismissal set aside and judgment entered for the settlement amount, minus credit for payments received, plus any costs associated with entering the judgment, not to exceed $500. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.) Defendant made total payments in the amount of $5,300.00. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) Plaintiff mailed a default letter regarding the missed payments on May 16, 2023. (Id. at ¶6, Exh. B.) Because payments were not made within 14 days, Plaintiff is now entitled to have dismissal set aside and judgment entered.

Plaintiff seeks an order entering judgment against Defendant based on the settlement amount of $8,746.93 ($14,046.93 - $5,300.00) plus costs of $510.00. However, since the costs were not to exceed $500 by the Agreement, the Court reduces the costs by $10.00. Thus, the Court enters judgment in a total amount of $9,246.93.

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,746.93 and $500.00 IN COSTS.

Moving party to give notice.