Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 18STLC14885, Date: 2024-04-09 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: 18STLC14885    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, April 09, 2024

Case Name:                             HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation v. MARIE NICOLE HERNANDEZ, an individual; VICENTE TOVAR, an individual, aka TOVAR MORAN; and DOES 1 through 10.

Case No.:                                18STLC14885

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment against Defendants Pursuant to CCP § 664.6

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Harco National Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

 

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Harco National Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Entered on 08/18/2022 and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

 

Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (CCP 664.6)  is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Marie Nicole Hernandez in the amount of $4,721.51.

 

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 26, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 02, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff Harco National Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an automobile subrogation action against Defendants Marie Nicole Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Vicente Tovar (“Tovar”) (collectively “Defendants”).

 

Defendant Hernandez filed her Answer to the Complaint on January 31, 2019.

 

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff requested default be entered against Defendant Tovar, and the Clerk entered default against Defendant Tovar the same day.

 

On August 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice that a conditional settlement agreement had been reached among the parties.

 

On March 16, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s oral request, the Court dismissed this action against Defendant Hernandez without prejudice.

 

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the March 16, 2022 dismissal against Defendant Hernandez. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and vacated the dismissal on June 22, 2022.

 

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation between itself and Defendant Hernandez indicating that the parties had reached a settlement in the case for $5,172.70 and requested the case dismissed without prejudice.

 

On August 18, 2022, 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 February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

 

No opposition has been filed.

 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

Plaintiff prays for the Court to set aside the dismissal entered on August 18, 2022, and enter judgment against Defendant Hernandez in the sum of $4,721.51 for the following: the unpaid principal amount of $2,972.70 plus $1,523.81 in interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from December 14, 2018, and $225.00 in court cost. Plaintiff states that Hernandez has failed to make her monthly payments per the stipulation necessitating 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. (08-16-22 Stipulation.) Before dismissing the action, the parties signed the Stipulation and submitted it to the Court. (Id. at p. 5.) On August 18, 2022, 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.” (08-18-22 Order) 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 16, 2022, provides that the parties agreed to settle the matter for a principal sum of $5,172.70, with Hernandez agreeing to pay a monthly installment of $100.00 from August 30, 2021, to July 30, 2023, which would increase to $150.00 per month from August 30, 2023, to July 30, 2024. (Brian P. Tapper Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, Exh. A.) Thereafter, Hernandez would make monthly payments of $200.00 per month from August 30, 2024, to November 30, 2024, and make a final payment of $172.70 by or before December 30, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff provides the Court with the declaration of its counsel who avers that Hernandez made payments totaling $2,200.00, however to date Hernandez has not made any payments per the Agreement on or after August 30, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) Accordingly, due to Hernandez’s failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff requested that a judgment be entered against Hernandez. (Id. ¶ 6.)

The Court finds the Settlement Agreement valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6. Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that Hernandez has not made payments per the agreement. (Id. ¶ 5.) 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 18, 2022, is vacated. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Hernandez in the amount of $4,721.51 for the following: the unpaid principal amount of $2,972.70 plus $1,523.81 in interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from December 14, 2018, and $225.00 in court costs.

 

III.       Conclusion

           

Plaintiff Harco National Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Entered on 08/18/2022 is GRANTED.

 

Judgment Pursuant to Written Stipulation (CCP 664.6) is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Marie Nicole Hernandez in the amount of $4,721.51.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.