Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 19STLC02252 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC02252, Date: 2023-03-29 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: 19STLC02252 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 25

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

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL, ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ENTER JUDGMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on May 18, 2021, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $5,643.75 as follows: principal amount of $4,170.07, $424.08 in interest, $376.40 in costs, and $673.20 in attorney’s fees.

SERVICE:

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

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

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

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 27, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 27, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Gabrielle Christina Molina (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile collision 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 $9,720.07 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages. (Ibid. pp. 3-4.) On May 13, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Settlement and Order (“Stipulation”), signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff in the settlement amount of $6,000. (5-7-21 Stipulation and Order.) On May 18, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation. (5-18-21 Order.)

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Enter Judgment (“Motion”), as well as a Memorandum of Costs.

No opposition has been 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. (5-7-21 Stipulation ¶ 8.) Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court. (Ibid. at p. 3.) On May 18, 2021, 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 California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” (5-18-21 Order.)

The Court finds that the Stipulation complies with § 664.6 requirements and 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 May 7, 2021, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $6,000. (5-7-21 Stipulation ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance carrier, GEICO, would pay the sum of $5,000.00. (Ibid. at ¶ 4(A).) Defendant would pay the remaining balance of $1,000.00 by making a payment of $50.00 upon signing of the agreement and no later than April 15, 2021, and making subsequent monthly payments of $50.00 due on the 15th of each month until the balance is paid in full. (Ibid. ¶ 4(B).) No interest would accrue as long as Defendant made monthly payments. (Ibid. at ¶ 4(B)(3).) All parties signed the Stipulation. (Ibid. at p. 3.)

The Stipulation also provides that if Defendant fails to make payments, Plaintiff will provide written notice of default to Defendant. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 6-7.) If Defendant does not cure the default within ten (10) days of receiving notice, “the attorney for Plaintiff may, by ex parte motion, submit an order to the court for entry of judgment against Defendant without further notice. Judgment shall be entered in the amount of $9,720.07, plus interest on that amount, at the legal rate, from April 15, 2021, plus all costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as any 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 ¶ 7.)

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation and seeking judgment in the amount of $5,643.75 for the settlement amount, interest accrued at 7% per annum, attorney’s fees and costs, minus payments from Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

On or about August 24, 2021, Defendant’s insurance carrier made a payment of $5,000 to Plaintiff. (Mahfouz II Decl. ¶ 7.) As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has only made payments totaling $550.00. (Ibid. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent past due notices to Defendant on July 27, and November 17, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 9, Ex. B.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant has not cured the default and there is an outstanding balance remaining. (Ibid. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal set aside and judgment entered in the amount of $5,643.75 as follows: $9,720.07 (principal amount), plus $424.08 (interest accrued at a legal rate of 7% per annum since default date of April 15, 2022), plus $376.40 (costs), plus $673.20 (attorney’s fees), minus $5,550.00 (payments made by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier). (Ibid. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

Plaintiff states that it is entitled to prejudgment interest at a rate of seven (7) percent per annum, as set forth in the Stipulation. (Memorandum p. 5; Stipulation ¶ 7.) Plaintiff calculates interest from April 15, 2022, date of default, to November 29, 2022, the date the instant Motion was prepared. (Memorandum p. 5.)

Plaintiff calculates attorney’s fees based on the Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.214, which provides that a recovery between $1,000.01 to $10,000.00 warrants $150 in attorney’s fees, plus 6% of the excess over $1,000, amounting to a total of $673.20. (Ibid. at p. 6.) Furthermore, Plaintiff has submitted a Memorandum of Costs showing that it requests $241.40 for filing the initial Complaint, $75.00 for service of process, and $60.00 for filing the instant Motion, for a total of $376.40 in costs. (Ibid.; 12-9-22 Memorandum of Costs.)

The Court finds the Stipulation to be valid and enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure § 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. Plaintiff has also provided authority to show that it is entitled to the settlement amount, less any payments made, costs incurred in enforcing the Stipulation, interest, and attorney’s fees. (Memorandum pp. 4-6.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s request as to attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on May 18, 2021, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $5,643.75 as follows: principal amount of $4,170.07, $424.08 in interest, $376.40 in costs, and $673.20 in attorney’s fees.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.