Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 18STLC08140, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 18STLC08140 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, March 14, 2024
Case Name: STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANA MAZARIEGOS-MARTINEZ; JESUS LUGO
SOTO; RICARDO GARCIA; and DOES 1 to 10.
Case No.: 18STLC08140
Motion: Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (CCP 664.6)
Moving Party: Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.’s Motion
to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.
The
Dismissal entered on 08/20/2019 is set aside and vacated.
Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants Ana Mazariegos-Martinez,
Jesus Lugo Soto, and Ricardo Garcia, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,442.60.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed
form of judgment within 10-days.
SERVICE:
[X]
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X]
Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X]
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 01, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of March 07, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On June 04, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation claim against Defendants Ana
Mazariegos-Martinez (“Martinez”), Jesus Lugo Soto (“Soto”), and Ricardo Garcia (“Garcia”)
(collectively “Defendants”).
Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on October
17, 2018.
On April 02 and April 03, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions to
deem the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions to Defendants
as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions. The Court granted the motions and
ordered sanctions against each of the Defendants for $293.33.
On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation
between itself and the Defendants indicating that the parties had reached a
settlement in the case for $10,877.96 and requested the case dismissed without
prejudice. On the same day, the Court ordered the dismissal of the case without
prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with the Court retaining jurisdiction
pursuant CCP § 664.6.
On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff
filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment.
No opposition has been filed.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff prays for the Court to set aside
the dismissal entered on August 20, 2019, and enter judgment against Defendants
in the sum of $3,442.60 for the following: the principal amount
of $10,877.96 less $8,058.86 in payments made by both Defendants’ insurance
carrier and the Defendants, plus court cost totaling $623.50 consisting of: $370.00 for
the complaint filing fee, $193.50 for the service of process fees, and $60.00 for
the motion fee. Plaintiff states that Defendants made monthly payments totaling
$3,100.00 however, Defendants have since defaulted on their monthly payments
under the stipulation. Around November 01, 2023, Plaintiff mailed default
letters to the Defendants regarding the missed payments as required by the
Agreement. Since notifying the Defendants about their default, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants have failed to bring their payments current. Thus,
because of the payment default, Plaintiff brings the instant motion.
OPPOSITION
No
opposition has been filed.
REPLY
No reply
has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal
Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6
(“CCP § 664.6”) states: “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) For
purposes of the statute, “a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any
of the following [among other individuals]: (1) ¶ The party. (2) ¶ An attorney
who represents the party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b) [emphasis
added].)
“On a motion to enforce, the court
must determine whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding.
[Citation.] The court assesses whether the material terms of the settlement
were reasonably well-defined and certain, and whether the parties expressly
acknowledged that they understood and agreed to be bound by those terms. [In
re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 911.]” (Estate of
Jones (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 948, 952.)
The court may
interpret the terms and conditions of a 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).
II. 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.) ‘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.’” (Id. (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.’” (Id. (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.’” (Id. (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 under Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 to enforce
the terms of the Stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default. (08-20-19
Stipulation.) Before dismissing the action, the parties signed the Stipulation
and submitted it to the Court. (Id.
at p. 3.) On August 20, 2019, the Court dismissed the entire case without
prejudice, according to the Stipulation, and expressly stated that it “shall
retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.” (Id. p. 4.) Therefore, the
Court finds that the Stipulation complies with the requirements under CCP §
664.6, and it has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the
parties’ Stipulation in this action.
B.
Entry of Judgment
The Settlement
Agreement, filed on August 20, 2019, provides that the parties agreed to settle
the matter for a principal sum of $10,877.96, with Defendant’s insurance
carrier making an initial payment of $4,958.86 by June 15, 2019. (Harlan M.
Reese, Esq. Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendants subsequently would make monthly
payments of $50.00 beginning on July 15, 2019, until the remaining settlement
amount of $4,919.10 was paid in full. (Id.) Plaintiff provides the Court
with the declaration of its counsel who avers that Defendants made monthly
payments totaling $3,100.00, however Defendants have since defaulted on
payments. (Id. ¶ 4.) Counsel
later states that pursuant to the Agreement, around November 01, 2023,
Plaintiff mailed Defendants default letters regarding their missed payments. (Id. ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Per the Agreement, if
no payment correcting the default was made within fourteen (14) days of issuing
a default letter, Plaintiff was entitled to file a motion vacating the
dismissal and have judgment entered. (Id. ¶
6.) Accordingly, due to Defendants’ failure to comply with the Settlement
Agreement, Plaintiff requested that a judgment be entered against Defendant. (Id. ¶ 7.)
The Court
finds the Settlement Agreement valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6. Here,
Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendants have made no payments or cured the
default after Plaintiff sent notice. (Id. ¶¶
5-7.) Therefore, since a valid and signed settlement agreement between the
parties has been breached, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enter
judgment, the motion satisfies the requirements under CCP § 664.6.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and
Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on August 20, 2019, is vacated.
Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,442.60 for
the following: the principal amount of $10,877.96 less $8,058.86
in payments made by both Defendants’ insurance carrier and the Defendants, plus court
cost totaling $623.50 consisting of: $370.00 for the complaint filing fee, $193.50
for the service of process fee, and $60.00 for the motion fee.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.’s Motion
to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.
The Dismissal entered on 08/20/2019 is set aside and
vacated.
Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants Ana
Mazariegos-Martinez, Jesus Lugo Soto, and Ricardo Garcia, jointly and
severally, in the amount of $3,442.60.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit
a proposed form of judgment within 10-days.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.