Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 19STLC08540, Date: 2024-05-28 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: 19STLC08540    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                          Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CINDY ARACELI RODRIGUEZ

Case No.:                                19STLC08540

Motion:                                   Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Entered on 01/04/2021 and Enter Judgment

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                     OK

Tentative Ruling:                    The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal Entered on 01/04/2021 and to Enter Judgment.

The Court orders the Dismissal entered Against Defendant Cindy Araceli Rodriguez on 01/04/2021 set aside and vacated.

Judgment is entered against Defendant Cindy Araceli Rodriguez, aka Cynthia Araceli Rodriguez in the Total amount of $10,039.28.

BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint against Defendant Cindy Araceli Rodriguez AKA Cynthia Araceli Rodriguez (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 5 for damages in the amount of $15,910.45 arising from a multi-vehicle accident involving Plaintiff’s insured.

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside dismissal and to enter judgment.

No opposition has been filed as of May 23, 2024.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

The motion should be granted due to Defendant’s default in the terms of the stipulation for judgment, and the terms of the stipulation permit dismissal be set aside and judgment be entered.

OPPOSITION

            None.

REPLY

None.

ANALYSIS

I.          Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]f 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.” In ruling on a motion to enter judgment, the court acts as a trier of fact. The court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. To do so, the court may receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)

“[W]here the plaintiff has filed a voluntary dismissal of an action …, the court is without jurisdiction to act further …, and any subsequent orders of the court are simply void.” (Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Auth. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89, (internal quotes omitted).) The result is different where a signed, written settlement agreement (or oral settlement before the court) states the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because that agreement could be enforced under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439- 440; Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 310, 326—court had continuing jurisdiction to consider attorney fees and costs motions after dismissal where settlement agreement provided court retained jurisdiction to enforce agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a) further states “[i]f requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement.” The request should be made while the court still has jurisdiction. (Wackeen v. Malis, supra, 97 CA4th at 433; see Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 962.)

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order to set aside the dismissal filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and to enter judgment against Defendant by reason of default in the terms of the stipulation for judgment.

On or about December 10, 2020, the parties entered into a written Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (the “Stipulation”) in which Defendant agreed to have Judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $15,910.45. That obligation would have been discharged had Defendant paid the sum of $11,211.32 in monthly payments of $100.00. (Susan M. Benson Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. “1.”)

Defendant made payments in the total sum of $3,197.00. Defendant's insurance carrier Alliance paid a total of $3,211.32 (Defendant's policy limits), leaving a balance due and owing in the sum of $4,803.00 with the last payment received on August 29, 2023. (Benson Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant was sent a default payment letter (the “Notice of Default”) on December 15, 2023, advising Defendant of the default and the balance then due in the sum of $4,803.00. (Benson Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. “2.”)

Reasonable attempts were made to continue the payment plan with Defendant, but Defendant has failed to pay any monies since the Notice of Default was sent.  (Benson Decl., ¶ 7.) 

Here, the Stipulation appears to have been executed, with signatures from the parties. As such, there is a valid agreement. On December 18, 2020, the Stipulation was filed with the Court, which states that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default. On January 4, 2021, the Order for Dismissal and Court Retaining Jurisdiction was signed and filed with the Court. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation. Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the sum of $15,910.45, less payments received of $6,408.32 ($3,197.00 plus $3,211.32) for a total principal of $9,502.13, plus costs of suit in the sum of $462.15, plus filing costs of $75.00 for this motion, for a total judgment entered in the sum of $10,039.28. (Benson Decl., ¶ 9.) 

The Court finds Plaintiff has established that there is a valid agreement between the parties, that the Court retains jurisdiction, and that there is a need to set aside the dismissal and to enter judgment against Defendant. Defendant does not oppose the motion as no opposition brief has been filed.

III.       Conclusion

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and to Enter Judgment against Defendant Cindy Araceli Rodriguez.

The Dismissal entered on 01/04/2021 is hereby set aside and vacated.

The Court enters Judgment against Defendant Cindy Araceli Rodriguez aka Cynthia Araceli Rodriguez in the total amount of $10,039.28.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.