Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC00585, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC00585     Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 25

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

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Isabel Loera

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  The Court orders the July 21, 2021 dismissal as to the entire action set aside and vacated.  Judgment is entered against Defendant Loera in the amount of $1,323.79.

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:          Filed on September 20, 2022.                           [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on September 22, 2022.                           [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Isabel Loera (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an alleged automobile accident that occurred on March 26, 2019.  (Compl.)  Plaintiff compensated its insured for claimed damages in the amount of $10,727.57 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)

On March 6, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement, followed by a Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach (“Stipulation”), filed on June 30, 2021.  (6-30-21 Stipulation.)  The Stipulation was signed by both parties, to dismiss the action without prejudice on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff in the settlement amount of $5,363.79.  (Ibid.)  On July 21, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation.  (7-21-21 Order.)

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.  On June 1, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice because it found that Defendant had not been properly served with the default letter and instant Motion.  (6-1-22 Minute Order.)

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (the “Motion”).  Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that the Motion is submitted on the moving papers, and he will not make an appearance at the hearing.  (Mot. p. 2.)  On September 20, 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”), and on September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition (“Reply”).

II.              Legal Standard

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).)

On June 30, 2021, prior to the dismissal, the parties filed a mutually signed Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach (“Stipulation”), which states that “[t]he parties stipulate that the court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 664.6 to enforce this agreement.”  (6-30-21 Stipulation and Order, ¶ 3.)  On July 21, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire case pursuant to the Stipulation and expressly stated that it “shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.”  (7-21-21 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 June 30, 2021, 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 $5,363.79.  (6-30-21 Stipulation, ¶¶ 1-2.)  Defendant’s insurance carrier will make an initial payment of $4,100.00 on or before June 15, 2021, and Defendant will make a one-time payment of the remaining balance of $1,263.79 on or before August 15, 2021.  (Ibid.)  All parties signed the Stipulation.  (Ibid. p. 3.)

The Stipulation also provides that in the event Defendant fails to make a timely payment, Plaintiff will mail a letter reminding Defendant to pay, and after fourteen (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 for the settlement amount, minus credit for payments received, plus any costs associated with entering the judgment not to exceed $500.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff will be entitled to have the dismissal set aside and judgment entered once it submits a declaration by counsel showing that a breach occurred.  (Ibid.)  “Defendant may cure the default(s) by bringing all payments current prior to entry of judgment and submitting such proof to plaintiff's counsel and the Court before entry of judgment.”  (Ibid.)

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation Agreement.  Defendant’s insurance carrier made a payment of $4,100.00.  (Espinosa Decl. ¶ 4.)  However, Defendant did not make the one-time payment of $1,263.79, as stipulated.  (Ibid.)  On or around May 23, 2022, Plaintiff mailed written notice of default to Defendant at 1801 Bearden Ave, Henderson, NV 89011, with a courtesy copy electronically mailed to defense counsel.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5; Ex. C.)  As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has not made the payment.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff now seeks to have the dismissal set aside and to have judgment entered in the amount of $1,323.79 as follows: $5,363.79 (settlement amount), minus $4,100.00 (payment by Defendant’s insurance carrier), plus $60.00 (court costs).  (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)

Defense counsel opposes the Motion on the ground that Defendant has not been properly served with the notice of default or the Motion.  (Oppos. p. 2.)  On May 18, 2022, Defense counsel opposed the initial Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment, arguing that both the default letter and the Notice of Motion had been served on Defendant Loera at 4230 33^rd Street, San Diego, CA 91204, an address where Defendant has never resided.  (5-18-22 Oppos. p. 2.)  Defense counsel received a copy of these documents and attempted to contact Defendant; however, she was unable to establish contact with Defendant.  (Ibid.)  On June 1, 2022, the Court denied the initial Motion because of improper service.  (6-1-22 Minute Order.)  Here, defense counsel opposes the instant Motion, arguing that Defendant Loera has still not been properly served as the Nevada address, listed for the default letter mailed in May 2022, was incorrect and Defendant had moved out of this address in December 2020.  (Oppos. p. 2.)  The Notice and Motion have also been sent to the wrong address at 4230 33^rd Street, San Diego, CA 92104.  (Ibid.)  Defense counsel has continued to attempt to establish contact with Defendant; however, she has not been able to locate Defendant.  (Ibid.)

In its Reply, Plaintiff’s counsel states that his office conducted research to determine Defendant’s address by inputting Defendant’s social security number, name, and birthdate into its asset locating service, which produced the following address for Defendant: 1801 Bearden Ave, Henderson, NV 89011.  (9-22-22 Espinosa Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. 1.)  On or about May 18, 2022, Plaintiff sent the default letter to this address.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2.)

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.  Furthermore, Plaintiff has demonstrated its efforts to determine Defendant’s current address and has mailed a written notice of default to Defendant at this address.  Thus, the Court finds that a valid and signed stipulation agreement was breached and the Court retained jurisdiction to enter judgment upon breach.

Although Proof of Service of the Notice of Motion, Motion, and Reply to Opposition were not properly served on Defendant at her physical address, the Court finds the service of these documents on defense counsel is sufficient.

For these reasons, Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is entitled to the settlement amount, less any payments made, plus any court costs.  Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $1,323.79.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  The Court orders the July 21, 2021 dismissal as to the entire action set aside and vacated.  Judgment is entered against Defendant Loera in the amount of $1,323.79.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.