Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC02060, Date: 2024-04-29 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: 20STLC02060    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                          Monday, April 29, 2024 

Case Name:                             State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Juan Crisosto Tihuila

Case No.:                                20STLC02060 

Motion:                                   Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company    

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                     OK

Recommended Ruling:           GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal Entered on 10/15/2020, and to Enter Judgment against Defendant Pursuant to CCP 664.6.

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the total amount of $11,818.70.

 ====================================================================

BACKGROUND 

On March 3, 2020, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint against Juan Crisosto Tihuila aka Juan Carlos Crus Lico aka Juan Crisostomo Tihuila (“Defendant”), and Does 1 through 5, inclusive for property damage in the amount of $17,625.90.

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside the dismissal filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and to enter judgment against Defendant for default on the stipulation for judgment.

No opposition has been filed as of April 24, 2024.  

ANALYSIS 

I.          Legal Standard

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

On or about September 15, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written stipulation for the entry of judgment (the “Stipulation”), which obligation would be discharged upon the payment of $13,725.90; Defendant was to pay $100.00 a month. (Susan M. Benson Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. “1.”)  

Defendant was sent a default payment letter on September 8, 2023, advising Defendant of the default and the $11,510.05 balance then due, but the post office was unable to locate Defendant at the addresses provided; Defendant never provided notice of an updated address as required by the Stipulation. (Benson Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. “2.”) On September 15, 2023, Defendant made an additional payment of $150.00 bringing the total amount Defendant has paid towards the balance of the settlement to $2,365.85, and leaving a balance due and owing in the sum of $11,360.05. (Benson Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendant was sent a default payment letter at Defendant’s newly discovered address on November 21, 2023, advising Defendant of the default and the balance then due in the sum of $11,360.05. (Benson Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. “3.”) Defendant has failed to pay any monies since the Notice of Default was sent. (Benson Decl., ¶ 8.)

The Stipulation appears to have been executed, with signatures from the two parties. (Benson Decl.; Ex. “1.”) As such, there is a valid agreement.

On October 15, 2020, the Stipulation was filed with the Court to allow the Court jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation. The Order for Dismissal and Court Retaining Jurisdiction was signed on October 15, 2020. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce this Stipulation.

Plaintiff contends Defendant failed to make payments and that the balance due is $11,360.05. (Benson Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff requests judgment entered in the sum of $11,818.70, for a total principal of 11,360.05, plus costs of suit in the sum of $386.65, plus filing costs of $72.00 for this motion. (Benson Decl., ¶ 10.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has established that there was a valid agreement between the parties, that the Court retains jurisdiction, and that there is a need to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal Entered on 10/15/2020 and to Enter Judgment against the Defendant.

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the total amount of $11,818.70.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.