Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 20STCV44367, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL AND MOTION TO ENFORCE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT

On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, filed a Complaint against Defendants, Ahmad Martin (“Martin”) and John Ruffin (“Ruffin”) for subrogation recovery in the sum of $26,155.80.

On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the parties’ Stipulation for Settlement and Entry of Judgment (“Stipulation”). On the same day, the court dismissed the case without prejudice and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement and enter judgment in the event of default.

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment against Martin.

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)¿¿¿

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.¿ (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)¿ The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).¿ The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]”¿ (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a “writing signed by the parties” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)¿

“‘[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 containing the parties’ agreement for the court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and enter judgment in the event of an uncured default. (Stipulation ¶¶ 14,¿16.) Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the court. (Ibid.) On July 14, 2022, the court dismissed the entire case pursuant to the Stipulation. The court has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.

The Stipulation provides that Plaintiff and Martin agree to settle this matter for a discounted amount of $16,244.02 plus costs of suit and prejudgment interest from date of loss, so long as Martin timely makes payments in the following manner: Martin’s insurance carrier is to pay $46,244.02 (the policy limit available to Martin), and Martin shall pay the balance of $2,000.00 by making payments of $50.00 per month until the balance of $2,000 is paid in full. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 4, 6, 9.) All parties signed the Stipulation.

The Stipulation also provides that in the event Martin fails to make timely payments, Martin will have a 10-day grace period for payment of any installment. Plaintiff must give Martin written notice of the default and ten (10) days from the date of notice to cure the default. Should Martin fail to make a payment, Plaintiff may immediately cause judgment to be entered for the full amount of $26,155.80, less any payments made to date of the breach. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9, 11.)

Martin’s insurance carrier issued the payment of $14,224.02. Thereafter, Martin made a total of $200.00 in monthly payments then defaulted. Plaintiff provided written notice of default by sending Past Due Notices on 6/07/2023, 9/06/2023, and 12/06/2023. (Mahfouz Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. B.) Martin has not remedied the default. (Mahfouz Decl., ¶ 10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks an order vacating the dismissal and entering judgment against Martin in the sum of $16,220.01, consisting of $26,155.80 in damages, $2,720.43 in prejudgment interest (at the annual rate of 7%), $1,174.67 in attorney fees, $593.22 in costs, less $14,424.02 in payments made under the Stipulation.

Plaintiff substantiates the damages sought. Plaintiff sent written notice to Martin to cure the default. (See Mahfouz Decl., Ex. B.) Martin has not cured the default. Plaintiff has also filed a Memorandum of Costs to support the request for $593.22 in costs. However, Plaintiff improperly seeks to recover attorney fees. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Stipulation does not permit Plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. The Stipulation states: “Each side shall bear their own costs and attorney fees relating to this matter, except as stipulated above.” (Stipulation, ¶ 18.) The Stipulation provides that Plaintiff may recover costs. (See Stipulation, ¶ 5.) There is no other language regarding attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the court is inclined to enter judgment in the sum of $15,045.34 (the judgment requested less attorney fees of $1,174.67).

Based on the foregoing, the motion is CONTINUED to April 24, 2024. Plaintiff is to file an amended proposed judgment no later than 5 court days before the hearing.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court