Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC03576, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC03576    Hearing Date: August 15, 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 Mutual’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Judgment is entered against Defendant Dilare in the amount of $10,060.00 and judgment is entered against Defendants Dilare and Munira, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,000.00.

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 August 11, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 11, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Erkin Dilare and Yilihamu Munira (“Defendants”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant Dilare, on the one hand, and Rochelle Tyrone and her passengers, individuals insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy, on the other hand.  (Complaint, p. 2.)  Yilihamu Munira is the alleged “registered owner, bailee or other person who gained possession and/or control of the vehicle” driven by Defendant Dilare (Ibid.).  Plaintiff compensated the insureds for their claimed damages in the amount of $22,605.30 and filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)

On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants stipulated to dismiss the action without prejudice on the premise that Defendants would compensate Plaintiff in the settlement amount of $15,000.  (1-11-21 Stipulation.)  On the same day, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon breach.  (1-11-21 Order for Dismissal.)

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“the Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, alleging that Defendants breached the Stipulation Agreement.  (Reese Decl. p. 2 ¶¶ 4-6.)  On July 13, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to this date because the Court could not discern “(1) whether the parties agreed to have the Court retain jurisdiction, and (2) whether Defendants breached the Stipulation Agreement and (3) what are the obligations of each Defendant in paying the settlement amount.”  (7-13-22 Minute Order.)

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed supplemental papers.

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).)

On July 13, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to this date because the Court could not determine whether the parties had agreed to have the Court retain jurisdiction over the case.  (7-13-22 Minute Order.)  On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff had filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach; however, the following sentence “[t]he parties stipulate that the court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 664.6 to enforce this agreement” was lined out.  (1-11-21 Stipulation.)

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a new copy of the Settlement Agreement, showing that it contains the provision requesting the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.  (7-22-22 Harlan Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff also refers to the Court Order for Dismissal, which states that “[t]he court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.”  (1-11-21 Order.)

As the Stipulation complies with § 664.6 requirements, the Court finds that it has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment.

B. Entry of Judgment

The Stipulation Agreement filed by Plaintiff on January 11, 2021, provides that Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice on the premise that Defendants would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $15,000.  (1-11-21 Stipulation.)  Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant Dilare would pay the $15,000 (settlement amount) in $200 monthly installments, starting on September 15, 2020, until the amount was paid in full and “Ms. Munira’s obligation shall be deemed settled once a total of $5,000.00 is paid.”  (Ibid. at 1 ¶ 2.)  All parties signed the Stipulation.  (Ibid. p. 3.)

The Stipulation also provides that in the event Defendants fail to make timely payments, Plaintiff would mail a letter reminding Defendants to pay, and after 14 days of not receiving payment following the letter, Plaintiff would “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 the court requires to enter judgment or costs associated with any procedure to have the judgment entered.”  (Ibid. p. 2 ¶ 3.)

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendants breached the Stipulation agreement – they defaulted on the payments and did not submit any payments even though 14 days elapsed after default letters were mailed on February 22 and 23, 2022 to each Defendant.  (Reese Decl. p. 2 ¶¶ 4-6.)  The Court found that Plaintiff had not provided any proof that Defendants defaulted and did not attach the exhibits referenced.  (7-13-22 Minute Order.)

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Declaration, stating that Defendants defaulted on payments and did not make any payments after Plaintiff sent letters on February 22 and February 23, 2022, and attached the default letters.  (Supplemental Reese Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. C.)  As no opposition has been filed, the Court finds the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant defaulted on the payments.

The Court had also ordered Plaintiff to clarify the amount requested from each Defendant.   (7-13-22 Minute Order.)  On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff set out that it seeks judgment “in the amount of $15,000, less the later payments of $2,000, plus court costs Plaintiff has incurred of $60.00, for the total judgment in the amount of $13,060.00.”  (Suppl. Reese Decl. ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff states that “judgment is enforceable as to [Defendant Munira] only to the extent of the minimum insurance requirements at the time of the accident which were $5,000.00 for property, less the later payments of $2,000.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)  Therefore, a total judgment of $3,000 is enforceable against Defendant Munira.  (Ibid.)  In the Proposed Order, Plaintiff asks for judgment to be entered against Defendants Dilare and Munira “jointly and severally in the amount of $3,000.00” and against Defendant Dilare in the amount of $10,060.  (7-22-22 Proposed Order.)

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.  Judgment is entered against Defendant Dilare in the amount of $10,060.00 and judgment is entered against Defendants Dilare and Munira, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,000.00.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Judgment is entered against Defendant Dilare in the amount of $10,060.00 and judgment is entered against Defendants Dilare and Munira, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,000.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.