Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: SC125228, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC125228    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, A Delaware Statutory Trust(s) (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendant Katya Chavez (“Defendant”) to recover outstanding loan debt owed to Plaintiff by Defendant. On March 15, 2017, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated settlement reached by the parties. Plaintiff now moves the Court to vacate that dismissal and enter a stipulated judgment against Plaintiff in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 provides a summary procedure that enables judges to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement. In particular, the statute provides:

(a) 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.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

(C.C.P.¿§ 664.6(a)-(b).)

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) One of the requirements is that the agreement must be signed by the parties “seeking to enforce the agreement under section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74¿Cal.App.4th 299, 305.) The purpose of this requirement is to “facilitate the summary nature of the proceeding by decreasing the likelihood of misunderstandings and ‘minimiz[ing] the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the settlement.” (Id. [citing Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 578, 585].)

Analysis

In 2017 Plaintiff and Defendant reached a settlement on Plaintiff’s claims and entered into a Conditional Stipulated Settlement which was filed with the Court on March 14, 2017. (Ex. 1 to Boone Decl.) Under the terms of the settlement, Defendant was to pay Plaintiff the sum of $15,000, to be paid in monthly installments of $125.00 beginning March 20, 2017. (Id. at ¶6.) In the event Defendant defaulted on her monthly payments, Plaintiff agreed to provide Defendant’s counsel with notice and give Defendant 10 days in which to cure the default. (Id. at ¶9.) In the event Defendant failed to cure the default within 10 days, the parties agreed “the Court shall set aside the dismissal without prejudice, resume jurisdiction over the matter, and enter a Judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against DEFENDANT as agreed in Paragraph 1 of this stipulation.” (Id.) Paragraph 1 of the stipulation provides for the entry of a stipulated judgment against Defendant in the amount of $43,019.21, less any credits for any and all installment payments made by Defendant. (Id. at ¶1.) The settlement agreement further provides the Court shall retain jurisdiction under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 to enter the judgment as stipulated by the parties. (Id. at ¶4.)

On March 15, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulated settlement. On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed and served a notice of default indicating Defendant had defaulted on her payments under the stipulated settlement agreement. Plaintiff indicates Defendant stopped making monthly installment payments on September 20, 2019. (Boone Decl. at ¶9.) To date Defendant has made payments to Defendant totaling $3,750. (Id. at ¶11.) The Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated the dismissal of this action without prejudice should be vacated and a stipulated judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $39,269.21 as requested in Plaintiff’s proposed judgment.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal of this action and enter a stipulated judgment is GRANTED.