Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 19STLC05393 2022-12-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC05393, Date: 2022-12-28 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: 19STLC05393 Hearing Date: December 28, 2022 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 and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on September 1, 2021, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $6,328.96 as follows: principal amount of $6,268.96 and $60.00 in costs.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is ordered to file a separate motion to amend the complaint, correcting Defendant’s name in the instant case. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 472, 473.)

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 December 21, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 21, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Jose Carlos Cerezo, aka Jose Cerezo Duran (“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 $12,068.96 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.

(Ibid. pp. 2-3.) On September 20, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On June 24, 2021, on the date scheduled for trial, the parties informed the Court that the case had settled. (6-24-21 Minute Order.)

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (“Stipulation”), signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $7,500.00. (8-24-21 Stipulation and Order.) The Stipulation also states that Defendant was erroneously sued and served as Jose Carlos Cerezo aka Jose Cerezo Duran, instead of Jose Carlos Cerezo Duran. (Ibid.)

On September 1, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation. (9-1-21 Order.)

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“Motion”). Plaintiff reiterates in the Motion that Defendant was erroneously sued and served, and Defendant’s correct name is Jose Carlos Cerezo Duran. (Ibid. at p. 1.)

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 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. (8-24-21 Stipulation ¶ 11.) 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 September 1, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation and expressly stated that it “RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.6.” (9-1-21 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 on August 24, 2021, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $7,500.00. (8-24-21 Stipulation ¶ 2.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance carrier would make a payment of $5,000, and Defendant would pay the balance of $2,500 with $100.00 monthly payments starting on September 1, 2021. (Ibid. at ¶ 2(a)(i)-(ii).) Alternatively, Defendant could make a $2,000 lump sum payment on or before July 1, 2022, and discharge his obligation. (Ibid. at ¶ 2(a)(iii).) Defendant would also be responsible for any amount not paid by his insurance policy. (Ibid. at ¶ 2(a)(i).) All parties signed the Stipulation. (Ibid. at p. 3.)

The Stipulation also provides that Defendant has a fifteen (15) day grace period to make any monthly payments. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) In the event Defendant fails to make payments, Plaintiff will give written notice of default and Defendant will have an additional ten (10) days to cure the default. (Ibid.) If Defendant does not cure the default, “Plaintiff may immediately cause Judgment to be entered pursuant to the terms set forth in this Stipulation for the full amount of the agreed upon judgement as set forth in Paragraph 1 less any monies paid to date of the breach. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.) If Defendant’s address changes, he is responsible for providing written notice of change of address, otherwise the Plaintiff will send the notice of default to the address indicated in the Stipulation. (Ibid.)

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant Jose Carlos Cerezo Duran, erroneously served and sued as Jose Carlos Cerezo aka Jose Cerezo Duran, breached the Stipulation. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel Susan M. Benson states that Defendant made payments in the total amount of $800.00 and Defendant’s insurance carrier made a payment of $5,000. (Benson Decl. ¶ 5.) The last payment was made on March 11, 2022. (Ibid.) On June 21, 2022, Counsel sent a default notice to Defendant to pay the remaining sum of $1,700. (Ibid. at ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) However, Defendant has not made any additional payments. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $6,328.96 as follows: principal amount of $12,068.96, less $5800.00 in payments made by Defendant and his insurance carrier, plus filing costs of $60.00. (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

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.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on September 1, 2021, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $6,328.96 as follows: principal amount of $6,268.96 and $60.00 in costs.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is ordered to file a separate motion to amend the complaint, correcting Defendant’s name in the instant case. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 472, 473.)

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff is ordered to file a separate motion to amend the complaint, correcting Defendant’s name in the instant case. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 472, 473.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.