Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00272, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV00272    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of Complaint

Plaintiff American Express National Bank (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Kay Wade (“Defendant”) became indebted to Plaintiff within the last four years on an open book account for money due. Plaintiff alleges that it extended credit to Defendant pursuant to two American Express credit card accounts. According to the complaint, Defendant owes an outstanding balance of $35,179.85.

            The complaint, filed on April 26, 2022, alleges a cause of action for common counts against Defendant.  

B.     Relevant Background

On June 10, 2022, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.   

On July 18, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court dismissed this matter without prejudice and retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6 to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties and enter judgment in the event of default.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On September 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the conditional dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

As of December 10, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff seeks an order vacating the conditional dismissal and entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant “on the grounds that Defendant has failed to make payments consistent with the settlement agreement and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment consistent with the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant . . . .” (Not. of Mot. at p. 1:24-28.)

A.    Legal Standard

            “Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “[I]f the parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement either in writing signed by the parties or orally before the court, the court, upon a motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Ibid.) “The court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the statute even after a dismissal, but only if the parties requested such a retention of jurisdiction before the dismissal.” (Ibid.) “Such a request must be made either in writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” (Ibid.)  

“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Ibid.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” (Ibid.) “The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to.” (Ibid.) “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Ibid.) Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 “expressly provides for the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at p. 1183.) “It is widely recognized that the courts are not at liberty to revise an agreement under the guise of construing it.” (Series AGI Est Linn of Appian Group Investors DE, LLC v. Eves (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164.)        

B.     Evidence in Support of the Motion

Plaintiff’s counsel, Scott D. Dyle (“Dyle”), provides a declaration in support of the

motion. Mr. Dyle states the following: Plaintiff filed this suit on or about April 26, 2022. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 2.) Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (the “Agreement”) on or around July 12, 2022. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties signed the Agreement, and it was filed with the Court, and the Court entered a conditional dismissal. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.)

            Defendant agreed that he was indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $22,286.51 on Defendant’s account ending in 7001 and $12,893.34 on Defendant’s account ending in 1008, for a total of $35,179.85. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 5.) Paragraph 5 of the Agreement states that the Court can enter judgment for $35,179.85 less credits for any payments made if Defendant fails to make payments consistent with the Agreement. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 6.) The Agreement set forth a repayment schedule in Paragraph 6 therein; however, Defendant has failed to comply with the repayment schedule and has not made a payment since March 26, 2024 on the accounts. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 7.) A cure letter was sent to Defendant on July 18, 2024. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 8; Ex. B.) Defendant has not cured his default. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 9.)

            According to Mr. Dyle, “Defendant has made payments totaling $13,429.85 since the start of this agreement.” (Dyle Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff is requesting a judgment of $22,325.00, which represents the $35,179.85 stipulated judgment amount plus $575.00 in costs minus credits for payments made in the sum of $13,429.85. (Dyle Decl., ¶ 10.)

C.        Analysis

            The Court finds that it has authority to enforce the Agreement pursuant to Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. The Agreement provides that if Defendant failed to comply therewith, the Court “can enter a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $35,179.85 plus costs” and that “Defendant shall receive a credit for any payments made under this agreement.” (Dyle Decl., Ex. A at ¶ 5.) The Court also has jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement as the Court entered an order pursuant to stipulation that it retained jurisdiction under CCP § 664.6. Further, the Court finds that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement.

            The Court, however, notes an error in Plaintiff’s proposed judgment form. Plaintiff’s proposed judgment form indicates that Plaintiff is requesting a total judgment of “$22,32500,” which the Court notes is a typographical error. (See 09/12/24 Proposed Judgment at p. 1:26.) The Court will correct this typographical error.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s motion to vacate the conditional dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  December 13, 2024                                    ___________________________

                                                                              John Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court