Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 19STLC02657 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC02657, Date: 2023-05-17 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: 19STLC02657 Hearing Date: May 17, 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 August 24, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $1,508.34 as follows: principal amount of $1,452.23 and $56.11 in interest.

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 May 14, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 14, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Alejandro Jimenez (“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 $1,652.23 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages. (Ibid. pp. 3-4.) On May 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Settlement and Entry of Judgment (“Stipulation”), signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff in the settlement amount of $950. (8-19-22 Stipulation and Order.) On August 24, 2022, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation. (8-24-22 Minute Order.)

On February 7, 2023, 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 Entry of Judgment (“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. (8-19-22 Stipulation ¶ 13.) Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court. (Ibid. at pp. 4-5.) On August 24, 2022, 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.” (8-24-22 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 August 19, 2022, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $950. (8-19-22 Stipulation ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance carrier, Infinity Insurance Company, would pay the sum of $200. (Ibid. at ¶ 4(A).) Defendant would pay the remaining balance of $750 by making a single lump sum payment of $750, due no later than October 1, 2022. (Ibid. ¶ 4(C).) No interest would accrue as long as Defendant made the payment. (Ibid. at ¶ 4(D).) All parties signed the Stipulation. (Ibid. at pp. 4-5.)

The Stipulation also provides that Defendant will have a 10-day grace period to make the payment. (Ibid. at ¶ 9.) If Defendant fails to make the payment, Plaintiff will provide written notice of default to Defendant. (Ibid.) If Defendant does not cure the default within ten (10) days of receiving notice, “Plaintiff may immediately cause Judgment to be entered pursuant to the terms set forth in this Stipulation for the full amount of $1,652.23, less any monies paid by Defendant and Infinity Insurance Company to date of the breach.” (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation and seeking judgment in the amount of $2,073.87 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 December 27, 2021, Defendant’s insurance carrier made a payment of $200 to Plaintiff. (Mahfouz II Decl. ¶ 7.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Defendant has not made any payments. (Ibid. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent past due notices to Defendant on April 7, 2022, and January 16, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶ 9, Ex. B.) 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 $2,073.87 as follows: $1,652.23 (principal amount), plus $56.11 (interest accrued at a legal rate of 7% per annum since default date of August 10, 2022), plus $376.40 (costs), plus $189.13 (attorney’s fees), minus $200 (payment made by 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 and pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3287(a) and 3288. (Memorandum p. 5.) Plaintiff calculates interest from August 10, 2022, the date of default, to February 7, 2023, the date the instant Motion was filed. (Ibid.) The Court notes that, according to the Stipulation, the parties agreed that no interest would accrue as long as payments were made on time. (8-19-22 Stipulation ¶ 7.) There is no reference to an award of interest anywhere else in the Stipulation. (See 8-19-22 Stipulation.) However, the Court finds that interest may be awarded pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3287(a) and 3288, and finds Plaintiff’s calculation reasonable.

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 $189.l3. (Memorandum p. 6.) Furthermore, Plaintiff has submitted a Memorandum of Costs requesting $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.; 2-7-23 Memorandum of Costs.)

However, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. The Stipulation states that “[e]ach side shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees relating to this matter, except as stipulated above.” (8-19-22 Stipulation ¶ 15.) There are no other references to attorney’s fees and costs in the Stipulation. Plaintiff argues that the Stipulation “provides that the prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs incurred in the enforcement of the Settlement Agreement;” however, this language is not found in the Stipulation. (Memorandum pp. 5-6.) For this reason, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.

The Court finds the Stipulation to be valid and enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant did not make any 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 demonstrated that it is entitled to an award of interest in the amount of $56.11.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on August 24, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $1,508.34 as follows: principal amount of $1,652.23, plus interest of $56.11, less $200 in payment made by Defendant’s insurance company.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.