Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 18STLC13143, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

Case Number: 18STLC13143    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, May 30, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. JOSE ANDRADE; and DOES 1 to 10

Case No.:                                18STLC13143

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Dismissal Entered on 06/05/2019 and to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6   

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company   

Responding Party:                   Unopposed  

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is GRANTED.  

The Dismissal entered on 06/05/2019 is set aside and vacated.

The Court will enforce the Stipulation and enter judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant Jose Andrade in the amount of  $4,010.19.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed form of judgment, consistent with today’s Court’s Ruling, within 10-days of this Court’s order.

BACKGROUND

On May October 24, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging a single cause of action for Subrogation against Defendant Jose Andrade (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 10. The Complaint arises from Defendant colliding with the vehicle of Plaintiff’s insured.

On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Judgment (the “Stipulation”) which indicates that Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate that Defendant owes Plaintiff “the principal amount of $15,750.86, plus interest at the legal rate of 7% from August 7, 2018 in the amount of $293.01, plus costs of $370.00. As such, judgment for said amount is agreed to and shall be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.” (Stipulation at ¶ 1.) The Stipulation provides that Defendant shall make fixed monthly payments and that the settlement amount is $13,600.69. (Stipulation at ¶ 2.) Specifically, an initial payment was to be made by Defendant’s insurance carrier on January 15, 2019 in the amount of $5,000.00. (Stipulation, ¶ 2.) Then, starting on January 15, 2019, Defendant was to make monthly payments of $150.00 and then one final payment of $50.69 on October 15, 2023. (Stipulation, ¶ 2.) The stipulation further provides that “[i]f defendant fails to pay on time and in the full amounts as they become due, plaintiff will be entitled to seek a writ and use any legal means to enforce the judgment. Plaintiff will be entitled to take such measures upon submission to the Court of a declaration showing the default by plaintiff’s counsel.” (Stipulation, ¶ 2.) According to the Stipulation, any dispute arising out of the Stipulation entitles the prevailing party to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Stipulation, ¶ 3.)

On June 5, 2019, the Court entered an Order for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach. The Court’s June 5, 2019 order provides that the entire case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal and that the Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

Also, on June 5, 2019, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to the Stipulation, and ordered this action dismissed without prejudice. (06/05/19 Minute Order.) The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce any and all terms of settlement, including judgment, pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (06/05/19 Minute Order.)

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6. As of May 28, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).)

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff contends that the parties stipulated to settle the case pursuant to the Stipulation in which Defenant agreed to make monthly payments to settle this matter. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has defaulted on his payments.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition brief was filed as of May 28, 2024.

REPLY

            No reply brief was filed as of May 28, 2024.

ANALYSIS

I.          Enforcing the Settlement Agreement   

A.                Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. “[I]f the parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement either in writing signed by the parties or orally before the court, the court, upon a motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Ibid. “The court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the statute even after a dismissal, but only if the parties requested such a retention of jurisdiction before the dismissal.” Ibid. “Such a request must be made either in writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” Ibid.

“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” Ibid. “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” Ibid. “The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to.” Ibid. “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Ibid. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 “expressly provides for the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Id. at p. 1183. “It is widely recognized that the courts are not at liberty to revise an agreement under the guise of construing it.” Series AGI Est Linn of Appian Group Investors DE, LLC v. Eves (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164. A prevailing party is entitled to its costs in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b).) A prevailing party is a party with a net monetary recovery. (CCP § 1032(a)(4).)

B.        Discussion  

In support of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Harlan M. Reese (“Reese”), declares that on December 29, 2018, the parties entered into the Stipulation, in which Defendant agreed to make monthly payments to settle this matter. (Reese Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Subsequently on June 5, 2019, this action was dismissed with reservation to vacate and enter judgment upon breach pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (Reese Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. B.) Defendant’s insurance carrier made a one-time payment in the amount of $5,000.00. (Reese Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant made monthly payments pursuant to the stipulation totaling $5,100.00; however, Defendant has since defaulted on payments. (Reese Decl., ¶ 5.) Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, on or about May 26, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a default letter regarding the missed payments. (Reese Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. C.) Since payment was not made within 14 days, Plaintiff is entitled to have any dismissal in this action set aside and judgment entered, minus credit for payments received. (Reese Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff now seeks to set aside the dismissal “and enter judgment in the amount of $13,600.69, less the later payments of $10,100.00 plus court costs Plaintiff has incurred of $509.50 consisting of: $370.00 filing fee, $79.50 service fee, $60.00 motion fee, for a total judgment in the amount of $4,010.19.” (Reese Decl., ¶ 2.)

 The Court finds that it has authority to enforce the Stipulation pursuant to Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. Plaintiff and Defendant signed the Stipulation. The Court also has jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation as the Court entered an order indicating that it retained jurisdiction under CCP § 664.6. The Court furthermore determines that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel sets forth the terms of the Stipulation and indicates that Defendant has breached the Stipulation.

The Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is therefore GRANTED.

II.        Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal Entered on 06/05/2019 and to Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

The Court will enforce the Stipulation and enter judgment thereto in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Jose Andrade in the amount of $4,010.19.

  Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed form of judgment, consistent with today’s Court’s Ruling, within 10-days of this Court’s order.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.