Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: EC058707, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: EC058707 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
gco
education loan funding corp., et al., Plaintiffs, v. JANET
STEGMAN, Defendant. |
Case No.: EC058707 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion for entry of judgment pursuant to
stipulation of the parties |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiffs Pal Depositor Trust-I, Private
Academic Loans, LLC, and GCO Education Funding Corp. (“Plaintiffs”) allege that
Richland State Bank (Plaintiffs’ assignor) entered into a written contract with
Defendant Janet Stegman (“Defendant”) on December 21, 2006. In the agreement, Defendant agreed to be
bound by the terms of the student loan agreement and make minimum periodic
payments of principal and interest.
Plaintiffs allege that on May 11, 2010, Defendant failed to make monthly
installment payments and that they are damaged in the principal sum of $73,484.74,
plus late charges if any.
The complaint, filed July 20, 2012,
alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract.
B.
Relevant Procedural Background and Motion on Calendar
On October 1,
2012, GCO Education Funding Corp. (“GCO”) filed a notice of conditional
settlement of the entire case. The
notice states that a request for dismissal will be filed no later than December
31, 2012.
On December 6, 2012, Judge Donna Fields
Goldstein (ret.) held a case management conference, and noted that a notice of
settlement had been filed. The Court
stated it did not accept the terms of the conditional settlement and set an OSC
re dismissal for January 31, 2013.
On January 31, 2013, GCO filed a Request
for Dismissal without prejudice of the action and requested that the Court
retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664.6.
That same day, the Court issued a minute order for the OSC, ordering the
case dismissed without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the
settlement agreement pursuant to CCP §664.6.
On June 5, 2019, GCO filed its first (unopposed)
motion to set aside the dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to
stipulation of the parties. On July 5,
2019, the Court denied the motion on the basis that the proof of service
accompanying the moving papers was not directed to any particular individual or
counsel, as it was mailed to Optima Advocates Inc., which is not a party to
this action.
On October 25, 2019, GCO filed a (second) motion
to set aside the dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to the
stipulation of the parties. GCO withdrew
the motion (set for December 13, 2019) on December 11, 2019.
On April 10, 2024, GCO filed this instant
(third) motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Stipulation of the parties. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition
brief.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“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.” (CCP §664.6.)
CCP § 664.6 was enacted to provide a
summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the
need for a new lawsuit. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick
(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) Under
California law, Courts may continue jurisdiction over parties and their
litigation, for the purpose of enforcing their settlement agreement, despite a
suit's having been dismissed, only when the parties request the retention of
jurisdiction in a manner that satisfies the requirements of CCP section
664.6. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.)
DISCUSSION
GCO
moves for entry of judgment against Defendant Janet Stegman pursuant to the
Stipulation of the parties, which was entered pursuant to CCP § 664.6.
A copy of the
Stipulation Agreement (“Stipulation”) is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration
of Kristen Dean, counsel for GCO. (Dean
Decl., ¶5, Ex, 1 [Stipulation].) The
Stipulation states in relevant part that:
·
GCO shall have judgment against Defendant
in the total amount of $76,279.43 (which includes principal of $73,484.74,
court costs of $435.00, and attorney’s fees of $2,359.69). (Stipulation, ¶1.)
·
Defendant agrees that the sum is currently
due, owing, and unpaid. (Id., ¶2.)
·
Judgment shall not be entered in favor of
GCO and against Defendant so long as Defendant pays the down payment of
$1,000.00 by 8/22/12, followed by a minimum sum of $300.00/month commencing
8/22/12 and continuing on/before the 22nd of each month thereafter
until the judgment amount is paid in full to Nelson & Kennard. (Id.,
¶¶3-4.) There is a 10-day grace period
to make payments. (Id., ¶5.)
·
Upon full payment, GCO shall cause a
Request for Dismissal to be filed on the entire action with prejudice. (Id.,
¶6.)
·
Upon Defendant’s default, the Stipulation
may be filed with a declaration of default and judgment entered in favor of
Plaintiff against Defendants for the full amount less payments received, plus
court costs and attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining judgment. (Id.,
¶7.) The prevailing party to any action
to enforce the Stipulation shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s
fees. (Id., ¶11.)
·
The parties request the Court’s
jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (Id.,
¶8.)
The Stipulation is signed by Defendant, defense
counsel (J.C. Flores), GCO (by Brandon Dale, Vice President), and GCO’s counsel
(Clifton Inohara of Nelson & Kennard).
B.
Merits of Motion
GCO moves to enforce the Stipulation on the
grounds that Defendant defaulted on her payments.
As discussed above, the Court has retained
jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6 of this matter. Thus, the Court may hear this matter on its
substantive merits.
In support of the motion, GCO
provides the declaration of its counsel, Kristen Dean.
Ms.
Dean states that Defendant defaulted on her payments on May 27, 2020. (Dean Decl., ¶6, Ex. 2 [Debtor File Balance
Report].) Based on Defendant’s default,
GCO requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount
of $73,484.74, plus $435.00 court costs, $69.50 process server fees, $2,359.69
in attorney’s fees, and $60 court costs for filing this motion, less $18,700.00
(for the payments made to date). (Id., ¶7.) Thus, GCO seeks a total judgment sum of $57,708.93. (Id.)
Based on the terms of the signed
Stipulation and Defendant’s default, the Court grants the motion and will enter
judgment in GCO’s favor and against Defendant.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
The Court grants GCO’s motion to set aside
the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant Janet Stegman pursuant to
the parties’ Stipulation. Judgment is
entered against Defendant in the total amount of $57,708.93 (i.e., $73,484.74,
plus $435.00 court costs, $69.50 process server fees, $2,359.69 in attorney’s
fees, and $60 court costs for filing this motion, less $18,700.00 for the sums
paid by Defendant prior to default).
Plaintiff GCO shall provide notice of this
order.
DATED: May 31, 2024 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court