Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 19STLC10220, Date: 2023-12-11 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: 19STLC10220    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, December 11, 2023

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. STERLING FLORES.

Case No.:                                19STLC10220

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgement Pursuant to CCP § 664.6

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative  Ruling:                   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on May 31, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $3,825.00.

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 December 04, 2023              [ ] Late            [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 04, 2023              [ ] Late            [X] None

BACKGROUND

On November 05, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Sterling Flores (“Defendant”) seeking damages in the amount of $12,296.92. Defendant filed an Answer on January 06, 2020.

A jury trial was scheduled for March 23, 2022. However, on March 17, 2022, Plaintiff had given the Court notice that a settlement had been reached between the parties.

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach (the “Stipulation”), signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $9,000.00. The Court issued an order pursuant to the Stipulation on May 31, 2022, dismissing the action without prejudice but retaining jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.

On November 09, 2022, Plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6. On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff withdrew its motion.

On November 07, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and to Enter Judgment (the “Motion”).  No opposition was filed.  

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff, pursuant to the Stipulation, seeks the Court to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $3,825.00. The amount is based on the principal balance of $9,000.00, less the later payments of $5,675.00, plus court costs Plaintiff has incurred of $500.00 consisting of: $370.00 Complaint filing fee, $89.50 service of process fee, and $60.00 motion fee.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure, § 664.6: 

 
(a)¿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. 

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: 

(1) The party. 

(2) An attorney who represents the party. 

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.” 

(Civ. Code, § 664.6.)

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 the Stipulation containing the parties’ agreement for the Court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 to enforce the terms of the stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default. (5-27-22 Stipulation ¶ 3.) Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court. (Id. at p. 3.) On May 31, 2022, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation and expressly stated that it “shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.” (5-31-22 Order.) Thus, the Court finds that the Stipulation complies with § 664.6 requirements and has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation in this action.

B.         Entry of Judgment

The Stipulation Agreement filed on May 27, 2022, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $9,000.00. (5-27-22 Stipulation ¶ 2.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance carrier would make a payment of $5,000.00 by April 17, 2022, then, beginning on September 1, 2022, Defendant would make monthly payments of $75.00 on the same day of each month until the settlement had been paid in full. (Id.) All parties signed the Stipulation. (Id. at p. 3.)

The Stipulation also provides that in the event Defendant fails to make timely payments, Plaintiff will mail a letter to Defendant regarding the default. (Id. at ¶ 3.) If Defendant does not remedy the default within fourteen (14) days of receiving notice, “then plaintiff will be entitled to have any dismissal in this action set aside and judgment entered for the settlement amount, minus credit for payments received, plus any costs associated with entering the judgment not to exceed $500.” (Id.) The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel shall be sufficient proof for judgment to be entered. (Id.)

On November 07, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion alleging that Defendant has defaulted on payments and Plaintiff is seeking to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to the Stipulation. (Memorandum p. 2.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel avers that Defendant’s insurance carrier made a one-time payment totaling $5,000.00. (Harlan Reese Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant subsequently made payments pursuant to the stipulation totaling $675.00 but has since defaulted on payments. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff mailed Defendant a default letter on October 19, 2023, pursuant to the agreement. (Reese Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) Payment was not made within 14 days of default. (Reese Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court finds the Stipulation to be valid and enforceable under Code of Civil Proc. § 664.6. Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant has not made any payments and has not cured the default after Plaintiff sent a notice. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Thus, a valid and signed stipulation agreement was breached, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment upon breach.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on May 31, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $3825.00 as follows: principal amount of $9,000.00, less the later payments of $5,675.00, plus court costs Plaintiff has incurred of $500.00 consisting of: $370.00 Complaint filing fee, $89.50 service of process fee, and $60.00 motion fee (the Stipulation limits costs to $500.00).

III.       Conclusion

            Motion is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on May 31, 2022, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $3825.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.