Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC00050, Date: 2024-03-13 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: 20STLC00050    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOSE HURTADO.

Case No.:                                20STLC00050

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 Entered on 05/31/2023 and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

 

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,500.00.

 

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed form of Judgment, consistent with this Court’s Ruling, 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 February 29, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 06, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On January 03, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation claim against Defendant Jose Hurtado (“Defendant”).

 

Defendant filed his answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on April 13, 2020.

 

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement indicating that a conditional settlement had been reached by the parties.

 

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation between itself and Defendant indicating that the parties had reached a settlement in the case for $10,184.11 and requested the case dismissed without prejudice.

 

            On May 31, 2023, 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 January 29, 2024, 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 May 31, 2023, and enter judgment against Defendant in the sum of $3,500.00 for the following: the principal amount of $10,184.11 less $7,184.11 in payments made by Defendant’s insurance carrier, plus court cost totaling $500.00 consisting of: $370.00 complaint filing fee, $89.50 service of process fee, and $60.00 motion fee (the agreement caps cost at $500.00). Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to make any monthly payments under the stipulation, thus putting him in default. Around December 19, 2023, Plaintiff mailed a default letter to Defendant regarding the missed payments as required by the Agreement. Since notifying Defendant about the default, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to bring 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. (05-25-23 Stipulation.) Before dismissing the action, the parties signed the Stipulation and submitted it to the Court. (Id. at p. 3.) On May 31, 2023, 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.” (05-31-23 Order for Dismissal.) 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 May 25, 2023, provides that the parties agreed to settle the matter for a principal sum of $10,184.11, with Defendant’s insurance carrier making an initial payment of $7,184.11 by March 01, 2023. (Harlan M. Reese, Esq. Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant would subsequently make monthly payments of $100.00 beginning on the first of each month, until paid in full. (Id.) Plaintiff provides the Court with the declaration of its counsel who avers that Defendant’s insurance carrier made a one-time payment of $7,184.11. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant subsequently failed to make any monthly payments under the stipulation, thus putting him into default. (Id. ¶ 5.) Pursuant to the Agreement, around December 19, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a default letter regarding the missed payments. (Id. ¶ 6; 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. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff requested that a judgment of $3,500.00 be entered against Defendant. (Id. ¶ 8.)

The Court finds the Settlement Agreement valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6. Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant 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 was 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 May 31, 2023, is vacated. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,500.00 for the following: the principal amount of $10,184.11 less $7,184.11 in payments made by Defendant’s insurance carrier, plus court cost totaling $500.00 consisting of: $370.00 complaint filing fee, $89.50 service of process fee, and $60.00 motion fee (the agreement caps cost at $500.00).

 

III.       Conclusion

           

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal Entered on 05/31/2023 and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

 

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,500.00.

 

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

Moving party is ordered to give notice.