Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC00983, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC00983     Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO SET ASIDE 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 May 31, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $10,017.55 as follows: principal amount of $9,957.55 and $60.00 in costs.

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 February 8, 2023.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 8, 2023.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

            On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Carlos Orantes (“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 $18,233.71 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)  On September 16, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

            On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the Event of Default (“Stipulation”), signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $10,126.16.  (5-25-22 Stipulation and Order.)

On May 31, 2022, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation.  (5-31-22 Order.)

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“Motion”).

On December 29, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the Motion to February 15, 2023.  (12-29-22 Minute Order.)  On the same day, the Clerk provided notice of continuance to both parties and on January 6, 2023, Plaintiff served a Notice of Continuance on Defendant.

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 in the Event of Default (“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.  (5-25-22 Stipulation ¶ 10.)  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 May 31, 2022, 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.”  (5-31-22 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 on May 25, 2022, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $10,126.16.  (5-25-22 Stipulation ¶ 4.)  Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance carrier Alliance United Insurance Company would make a payment of $8,126.16 within 30 days of Defendant’s execution of the agreement.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2(i).)  Defendant would pay the remaining balance of $2,000.00 with $50.00 monthly payments starting on April 1, 2022, and continuing on the first day of every month, for twelve months.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2(ii).)  Thereafter, starting on April 1, 2023, Defendant would make monthly payments of $75.00 until the balance is paid in full.  (Ibid.)  Defendant would also be responsible for the balance not paid by his insurance carrier.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2(i).)  All parties signed the Stipulation.  (Ibid. at pp. 4-5.)

The Stipulation also provides that Defendant will have a fifteen (15) day grace period to make payments.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)  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; and shall also file a partial Satisfaction of Judgment for all sums previously paid pursuant to this Stipulation.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  If Defendant’s address changes, he is responsible for providing written notice of change of address, otherwise Plaintiff will send the notice of default to the address indicated in the Stipulation.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Susan M. Benson, states that Defendant’s insurance carrier made a payment of $8,126.16.  (Benson Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant made payments totaling $150.00, with the last payment received on June 14, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On August 23, 2022, Counsel sent a default notice to Defendant to pay the remaining sum of $1,850.00.  (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 $10,017.55 as follows: principal amount of $18,233.71, less $8,276.16 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 did make 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 May 31, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $10,017.55 as follows: principal amount of $9,957.55 and $60.00 in costs.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Dismissal entered on May 31, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $10,017.55 as follows: principal amount of $9,957.55 and $60.00 in costs.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.