Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC00454, Date: 2022-08-08 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: 19STLC00454 Hearing Date: August 8, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL AND
ENTER JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT
(CCP § 664.6)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff State
Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment of $6,360.00 will be entered against
Defendant Shaneen Reed.
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 August 3,
2022 [ ] Late [X]
None
REPLY: None filed as
of August 3, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Defendant Shaneen Reed (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an
automobile accident between Defendant and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s
automobile insurance policy. (Complaint,
p. 2.) Plaintiff compensated Insured for
claimed damages in the amount of $17,236.44 and filed the instant lawsuit
against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages. (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)
On March 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed
a Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon
Breach, signed by Plaintiff and Defendant.
On October 31, 2019, the Court dismissed the entire case without
prejudice, retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. (10-31-19 Order for Dismissal.)
On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“Motion”) pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, alleging that Defendant breached the
Stipulation Agreement. Counsel notified
the Court that he would not appear at the hearing. (6-22-22 Motion.)
No opposition was filed.
II.
Legal
Standard & Discussion
Code of Civil Procedure § 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 Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach
(“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. (3-28-19 Stipulation ¶ 3.) Prior to the dismissal of this action, the
Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court. (Ibid.) On October 31, 2019, the Court dismissed the
entire case pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to
Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach.
(10-31-19 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
Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into the Stipulation Agreement on March 21, 2019. (3-28-19 Stipulation for Judgment.) The Stipulation provides that Plaintiff and
Defendant agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice on the premise that
Defendant would pay Plaintiff a total of $10,000 (settlement amount) as
follows: $3,000 to be paid by Defendant’s insurance carrier; then, starting March
15, 2019, monthly payments of $50.00 to be paid by Defendant due on the same
day of each month until the settlement amount is paid in full. (Ibid at ¶ 2.) All parties signed the Stipulation. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)
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 14 days of not receiving payment
following the letter, Plaintiff will “be entitled to have any dismissal in this
action set aside and judgment entered as prayed for in the complaint, minus
credit for payments received, plus any costs the court requires to enter
judgment or costs associated with any procedure to have the judgment
entered.” (Ibid. at ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff
contends that Defendant’s insurance carrier made a one-time payment in the
amount of $3,000.00. (Espinosa Decl. ¶ 4.)
After making some payments, Defendant
defaulted. (Ibid.) Plaintiff mailed a default letter regarding
the missed payments to Defendant on or about April 1, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Defendant has failed to make any payments
within 14 days. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal set
aside and to have judgment entered in the amount of $10,000, minus payments of
$3,700, plus courts costs of $60.00, for a total of $6,360.00. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)
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.
Since a valid and signed stipulation
agreement was breached and the Court retained jurisdiction to enter judgment
upon breach, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is
GRANTED. Judgment in the amount of
$6,360.00 will be entered against Defendant.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State
Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.
Judgment of $5,105.74 will be entered
against Defendant Shaneen Reed.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.