Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC00841, Date: 2022-09-13 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: 20STLC00841 Hearing Date: September 13, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL
(CCP § 664.6)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside
Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered against Defendant Gomez in the amount of $11,861.38.
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 September
8, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of September 8, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against
Defendant Raul Gomez (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile
accident 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 $14,132.00 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for
allegedly causing the damages. (Ibid.
pp. 2-4.)
On February 28,
2020, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.
On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a
Stipulation, signed by both parties, to dismiss the action without prejudice on
the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff in the settlement amount
of $6,548.84. (7-20-21 Stipulation.) On July 26, 2021, the Court dismissed the
entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Settlement and
Order. (7-26-21 Proposed Order.)
On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter
Judgment (“the Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, in the
amount of $12,352.40. On June 20, 2022,
Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum of Costs and a Proposed Judgment.
No opposition was 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. (7-20-21
Stipulation ¶ 8.) Prior to the
dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and
submitted to the Court. (Ibid.) On July 26, 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 Code
of Civil Procedure section 664.6.”
(7-26-21 Proposed 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 July 20, 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 $6,548.84. (7-20-21 Stipulation, ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s
insurance carrier will pay Defendant’s insurance policy limit in the amount of
$4,048.84. (Ibid. at ¶
4(A).) Defendant will pay the balance of
$2,500.00 with a $50.00 down payment at signing of the Stipulation and
subsequent $50.00 monthly installments, on the 15th day of each
month, until the amount is paid in full.
(Ibid. at ¶ 4(B).) The
Stipulation states that interest will not accrue if Defendant follows this
payment plan. (Ibid. at ¶
4(B)(3).) All parties signed the
Stipulation. (Ibid. pp. 3-4.)
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 ten (10) days of not receiving
payment following the letter, Plaintiff may “submit an order to the court for
entry of judgment against Defendant without further notice…in the amount of
$14,132.00, plus interest on that amount, at the legal rate, from August 15, 2021,
plus all costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as 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 June 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation agreement. In July 2021, Defendant’s insurance carrier
made a payment of $4,048.84. (Mahfouz II
Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant did not make any
payments, so Plaintiff’s counsel provided written notices of default to
Defendant on December 7 and 29, 2021, and January 21, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 9; Ex. B.) As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has
not made any payments toward the settlement amount. (Ibid. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal set
aside and to have judgment entered in the amount of $12,352.40 as follows:
$14,132 (settlement amount), minus $4,048.84 (payment by Defendant’s insurance
carrier), plus $929.53 (interest accrued at a legal rate of 7% per annum since
default date of July 9, 2021), plus $525.75 (costs), plus $813.96 (attorney’s fees). (Ibid. at ¶¶ 11-12.)
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to
pre-judgment interest under Code of Civil Procedure § 3287(a) and because
the Stipulation signed by the parties contained a provision authorizing
interest to accrue in the event of default.
(Mot. p. 5; 7-20-21 Stipulation, ¶ 7.) § 3287 provides that “[a] person is entitled
to recover damages certain…is entitled also to recover interest thereon from
that day.” Plaintiff calculates interest
from July 9, 2021, date of default, to June 17, 2022, date the instant Motion
was prepared, at a rate of seven (7) percent per annum of the principal amount
of $14,132.00, for a total interest of $929.53.
(Ibid.)
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to
costs as the prevailing party, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(b),
and because the Stipulation provides that Plaintiff can recover costs incurred
in the enforcement of the Stipulation. (Mot.
p. 5; Stipulation ¶ 7.) Plaintiff
seeks costs in the amount of $525.75 as follows; $390.75 for filing fees for
the initial Complaint, $75.00 for service of process fees, and $60.00 for motion
fees. (Ibid. at p. 6; 6-20-22
Memorandum of Costs.)
Finally, Plaintiff argues that it is
entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, as the Stipulation allowed for recovery
of attorney’s fees. (Mot. p. 6;
Stipulation ¶ 7.) It seeks $813.96 in
attorney’s fees based on the Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule
3.214, which provides the schedule for attorney’s fees in case of default. (Ibid.) According to this schedule, Plaintiff is
entitled to “$690 in attorney’s fees plus 3% of the excess over $10,000” for a
total of $813.96. (Ibid.;
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Local Rule 3.214(a).)
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.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to the settlement amount, less any payments made, costs incurred in
enforcing the Stipulation Agreement, interest, and attorney’s fees. However, the Court does not find that costs
of filing the initial Complaint are reasonable, as these costs were not
incurred in the process of enforcing the Stipulation Agreement. In calculating interest, the Court finds that
according to the Stipulation, interest would be calculated “at the legal rate,
from August 15, 2021” and not July 9, 2021.
(7-20-21 Stipulation ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff
is entitled to interest in the amount of $829.26, not $929.53. Thus, in total, Plaintiff can recover
$10,083.16 for the settlement amount ($14,132 minus $4,048.84 payment), plus
$829.26 in interest, $135 in costs, and $813.96 in attorney’s fees, for a total
of $11,861.38. Judgment is entered
against Defendant in the amount of $11,861.38.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.