Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 18STLC14939, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 18STLC14939    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL, ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ENTER JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL, ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ENTER JUDGMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 10, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.  Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein at least 16 court days before the scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the hearing being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 YES

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 YES

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     YES

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of October 7, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of October 7, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Rafael Tulayatei (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant, on the one hand, and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy, on the other hand.  (Compl.)  Plaintiff compensated the insured for claimed damages in the amount of $12,594.50 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 3-4.)

On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Settlement and Order, signed by both parties, to dismiss the action without prejudice on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff in the settlement amount of $12,984.50.  (9-9-19 Stipulation and Order.)  On October 11, 2019, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Settlement and Order.  (9-9-19 Order Proposed.)

On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement.  On September 8, 2021, the Court vacated the hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement.  (9-8-22 Minute Order.)

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment (“the Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, in the amount of $4,374.41.  Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum of Costs and a Proposed Judgment on the same day.

No opposition was filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

CCP § 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.

CCP § 664.6(a)-(b) (emphasis added).

III.            Discussion

A. Retention of Jurisdiction

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’  (Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 867) [12 Cal.Rptr.3d 142.) ‘If requested by the parties,’ however, ‘the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.’ (§ 664.6, italics added.)”  (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.)  “‘Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.’”  (Ibid. (quoting Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37).)

“A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’”  (Ibid. (quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440).)  “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’” (Ibid. (quoting Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at 440).)

Here, the parties signed a Stipulation for Settlement and Order (“Stipulation”) containing the parties’ agreement for the Court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 to enforce the terms of the stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default.  (9-19-19 Stipulation ¶ 9.)  Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court.  (Ibid.)  On October 11, 2019, the Court dismissed the entire case pursuant to the Stipulation and expressly stated that it “shall retain Jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation for Settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.”  (9-9-19 Proposed Order.)

As the Stipulation complies with § 664.6 requirements, the Court has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation in this action.

B. Entry of Judgment

The Stipulation Agreement filed by Plaintiff on September 9, 2019, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice on the premise that Defendant will compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $12,984.50.  (9-9-19 Stipulation, ¶ 5.)  Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance carrier will pay Defendant’s insurance policy limit in the amount of $9,550.00, plus the $370.00 first appearance fee and $20.00 order fee.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5(A).)  Defendant will pay the balance of $3,044.50 with a $100 payment upon signing of the Stipulation and no later than August 1, 2019, and subsequent $100 monthly installments, on the first day of each month, until the amount is paid in full.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5(B).)  The Stipulation states that interest will not accrue if Defendant follows this payment plan.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5(B)(3).)  All parties signed the Stipulation.  (Ibid. pp. 3-4.)

The Stipulation also provides that in the event Defendant fails to make timely payments, Plaintiff will mail a letter reminding Defendant to pay, and after ten (10) days of not receiving payment following the letter, Plaintiff may “submit an order to the court for entry of judgment against Defendant without further notice…in the amount of $12,984.50, plus interest on that amount, at the legal rate, from August 1, 2019, plus all costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as additional costs incurred in the enforcement of this agreement less any payments that have been made by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier to Plaintiff, as of that date.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation agreement.  On or about May 12, 2021, Defendant’s insurance carrier made a payment of $9,940.00 to Plaintiff.  (Mahfouz II Decl. ¶ 7.)  Defendant made payments in the amount of $690.00 and then stopped making further payments.  (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)  Plaintiff’s counsel sent default notices to Defendant on January 21, February 15, and March 11, 2022.  (Ibid., Ex. B.)  As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has not made any additional payments toward the settlement amount.  (Ibid. at ¶ 10.)  Plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal set aside and to have judgment entered in the amount of $4,374.41 as follows: $12,984.50 (settlement amount), minus $10,630.00 (payments made by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier), plus $714.63 (interest accrued at a legal rate of 7% per annum since default date of October 1, 2021), plus $525.75 (costs), plus $779.53 (attorney’s fees).  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

The Court finds the Stipulation to be valid and enforceable under Code of Civil Proc. § 664.6.  Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant stopped making payments and did not respond to Plaintiff’s written notice of default.  Thus, a valid and signed stipulation agreement was breached and the Court retained jurisdiction to enter judgment upon breach.  The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the settlement amount, less any payments made, costs incurred in enforcing the Stipulation Agreement, interest, and attorney’s fees.

However, the Court is not clear regarding the $450.75 in filing and motion fees requested in the Memorandum of Costs and the calculation of attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide additional clarification regarding its calculation of costs and attorney’s fees.

Moreover, the Court finds that the Notice of Motion filed and served by Plaintiff is defective as it contains the Stanley Mosk Courthouse address, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA.  The hearing on the Motion will be held at the Spring Street Courthouse, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

The Court continues the hearing on the Motion and orders Plaintiff to file and serve a corrected Notice of Motion, as well as clarification regarding its calculation of attorney’s fees and costs.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 10, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.  Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein at least 16 court days before the scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the hearing being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.