Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC03260, Date: 2024-02-15 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: 20STLC03260    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, February 15, 2024

Case Name:                             FIRST AMERICAN PROPERTY& CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation v. JOSE ARMANDO GONZALEZ; ARTURO PALENCIA.

Case No.:                                20STLC03260

Motion:                                   Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

 

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $7,997.33.

 

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 26, 2024              [   ] Late          [X] None 

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

 

BACKGROUND

 

On April 10, 2020, First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation action against Jose Armando Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) and Arturo Palencia (“Palencia”) (collectively “Defendants”).

 

On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement stating that the parties had reached a conditional settlement.

 

On April 04, 2022, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation between itself and Defendants indicating that the parties had reached a settlement in the case for $11,230.75 and requested the case dismissed without prejudice.

 

            On April 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 November 09, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.

 

            On January 09, 2024, the Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the instant motion to February 15, 2024.

                       

No opposition has been filed.

 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

Plaintiff prays for the Court to set aside the dismissal entered on April 18, 2022, and enter judgment against Defendants in the sum of $7,997.33 for the following: principal amount of $11,230.75 less $3,233.42 in payments made by Defendants. Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to make any monthly payments under the stipulation, after March 27, 2023, thus putting them in default. Since notifying Defendant about their failure to keep up payments, Plaintiff alleges that no further payments have been made. 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. (04-04-22 Stipulation.) Before dismissing the action, the parties signed the Stipulation and submitted it to the Court. (Id. at p. 5-6.) On April 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.” (04-18-22 Order for the Court to Retain Jurisdiction.) 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 April 04, 2022, provides that the parties agreed to settle the matter for a principal sum of $11,230.75, with Defendants committing to make eighty-three (83) monthly payments of $129.29 beginning on March 25, 2021, and continuing every 25th of each month, until paid in full. (Jay W. Smith Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) In Plaintiff’s Counsel’s declaration, counsel avers that Defendants made the initial down payment as well as twenty-five (25) monthly payments of $129.29 for a total amount of $3,233.42 with the last payment being made on March 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6.) Counsel states that his office received an email from Defendant Gonzalez stating that he was running behind on payments and requested that payments be set to June 30, 2023. (Id.; Exh. 2.) Counsel further states that even though the agreement did not extend a grace period, nor required notice of payment default, Plaintiff acted in good faith and reached out to Defendant Gonzalez regarding his overdue payments (Id.; Exh. 2 p.) Accordingly, due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff requested that a judgment of $7,997.33 be entered against Defendant. (Id. ¶ 8.)

The Court finds the Settlement Agreement valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6. Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendants have not cured their default after Plaintiff sent notice. (Id. ¶ 6.) 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 Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on April 18, 2022, is vacated. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $7,997.33 for the following: principal amount of $11,230.75 less $3,233.42 in payments made by Defendants.

 

III.       Conclusion

           

Plaintiff First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $7,997.33.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.