Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC07412, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC07412    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 25

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

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Judgment of $5,105.74 will be entered against Defendant Andrew Ramos.

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 July 27, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 27, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 31, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Andrew Ramos (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendant and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.  (Complaint, p. 2.)  Plaintiff compensated Insured for claimed damages in the amount of $6,245.74 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  (Ibid. pp. 2-3.)

On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated to dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach (“Stipulation Agreement”).  (2-10-21 Stipulation and Order.)  On February 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.     (2-19-21 Order for Dismissal.)

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation Agreement.  (6-2-22 Motion.)  Counsel notified the Court that he would not appear at the hearing.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff moves to set aside dismissal and enter judgment for the remaining balance of the Stipulation Agreement.  (6-2-22 Memorandum.)

No opposition was filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure § 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 Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter 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.  (Anderson Dec. ¶ 2; Ex. A – Stipulation ¶ 3.)  Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court along with an order for dismissal.  (2-10-21 Stipulation and Order.)  On February 19, 2021, the Court entered the order for dismissal while retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.  (2-19-21 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

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the Stipulation on November 16, 2020.  (Anderson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant would pay Plaintiff a total of $6,245.74 as follows: $3,900.00 to be paid by Defendant’s insurance carrier; then, starting November 15, 2020, eleven payments of $200.00 to be paid by Defendant due on the same day of each month; and, starting October 15, 2021, one final payment of $145.74.  (Ex. A – Stipulation ¶ 2.)  The Stipulation provides the following, in relevant part:

“If defendant fails to make a timely payment, said failure is a material breach.  In such event, plaintiff will mail defendant a letter advising that a payment has not been received.  If the payment is not made within 14 days, then plaintiff will be entitled to have any dismissal in this action set aside and judgment entered for the amount prayed for in the complaint, minus credit for payments received, plus any costs the court requires and a reasonable attorney fee associated with entering the judgment not to exceed $500.  Plaintiff shall be entitled to said judgment upon submission of a declaration by plaintiff’s counsel showing the breach and requesting that judgment be entered.  Plaintiff shall provide written notice of such request to defendant.  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.  Otherwise, judgment shall be entered as set forth in this paragraph.

(Ibid. at ¶ 3.)

Defendant’s insurance carrier failed to make the $3,900.00 payment.  (Anderson Decl., ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s insurance carrier on January 12, 2022, requesting the payment, but payment has not been submitted.  (Ibid.)  Defendant made monthly payments but has since defaulted on payments.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a default letter regarding the missed payments to Defendant on or about January 12, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Ex. C.)  Defendant has failed to make any payments within 14 days.  (Id. at ¶ 6.)

As Defendant has defaulted, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment under the Stipulation.

On July 6, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this Motion because it found the amount of judgment to be entered against Defendant unclear.  (7-6-22 Minute Order.)  Plaintiff sought entry of judgment against Defendant in a total amount of $5,105.74 as follows: $6,245.74 less later payments in the amount of $1,200.00, plus court costs in the amount of $60.00.  (Anderson Decl. ¶ 7.)  However, the Court calculated total judgment to be sought $6,105.74 as follows: $6,245.74 less later payments in the amount of $200.00 (as stated in Counsel Anderson’s Declaration ¶ 5) plus court costs in the amount of $60.00.  (7-6-22 Minute Order.)  The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a supplemental declaration clarifying the total amount of payments Defendant made and the amount of judgment Plaintiff is seeking in this action, along with an amended proposed order reflecting the amount sought.  (Ibid.)

On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Declaration correcting the total amount of payments Defendant made to $1,200 and reaffirming that it seeks judgment in the amount of $5,105.74.  (Suppl. Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.)  The Court finds the Supplemental Declaration and clarification sufficient to enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $5,105.74.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Judgment of $5,105.74 will be entered against Defendant Andrew Ramos.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.