Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC03453, Date: 2024-02-01 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: 20STLC03453    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. DANIEL LAURENCE SABAH; AYDIN KARZAR AKA AYDIN HAJIR; and DOES 1 to 10

Case No.:                                20STLC03453

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company  

Responding Party:                   Unopposed  

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the 09/14/2021 Dismissal and Enter Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Daniel Laurence Sabah (“Sabah”), Aydin Karzar aka Aydin Hajir (“Karzar”) (collectively “Defendants”) and DOES 1 to 10 alleging a cause of action for subrogation.

On August 31, 2020, Defendant Sabah filed his Answer and Cross-Complaint against Karzar.

On March 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on such motion to September 15, 2021.

On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation between itself and Defendant Karzar indicating that the parties had reached a settlement in the case for $2,260.00 and requested the case dismissed without prejudice.

On September 14, 2021, the Court ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

  On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (the “Motion”) pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment as to Defendant Sabah. (Motion, p. 1:22-2:7.)

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs.

On February 1, 2024, without hearing and adopting its tentative ruling as the order of the Court, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to March 5, 2024 and ordered Plaintiff to “file and serve supplemental papers consistent with the Court’s ruling.” (02/01/24 Minute Order, p. 7.) The Court stated that Plaintiff’s failure to file supplemental papers would “result in the Motion being placed off-calendar or denied.” (02/01/24 Minute Order, p. 7.)

The Court noted that “the settlement agreement that purports to be between Plaintiff and Defendant Sabah is signed by Defendant Karzar, and not Defendant Sabah. Moreover, paragraph 2 of that agreement provides that Defendant Karzar shall pay Plaintiff $2,260 in full settlement of this action rather than Defendant Sabah.” (02/01/24 Minute Order, p.7.) The Court stated that the moving papers and proposed order request payment and judgment with respect to Defendant Sabah. (02/01/24 Minute Order, p.7.)

The Court found that payment and judgment were rightly sought as to Defendant Karzar rather than Defendant Sabah; however, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit supplemental papers before it could grant the Motion. (02/01/24 Minute Order, p.7.) The Court analyzed the Motion on its merits only as to Defendant Karzar. (02/01/24 Minute Order, p. 5.)

No opposition brief has been filed. Critically, Plaintiff has not filed any supplemental papers addressing the Court’s identified deficiencies concerning the Motion. Plaintiff has only filed a notice of continued hearing date concerning the Motion, which was filed on February 9, 2024. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s February 1, 2024 order. The defects concerning the Motion still exist.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the dismissal entered on September 14, 2021, and enter judgment against Defendant Sabah in the sum of $1,934.50 for the following: principal amount of $2,260.00, less $700.00 in payments made by Sabah, plus court costs totaling $374.50. Plaintiff argues that Sabah made monthly payments in the amount of $700.00 pursuant to the stipulation; however, Sabah has since defaulted on payments. On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff mailed a default letter to Sabah regarding the missed payments and Sabah has failed to bring his payments current.  

OPPOSITION

            No opposition brief was filed.

REPLY

            No reply brief was filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Vacating the Dismissal and Entering Judgment  

A.                Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. “[I]f the parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement either in writing signed by the parties or orally before the court, the court, upon a motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Ibid. “The court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the statute even after a dismissal, but only if the parties requested such a retention of jurisdiction before the dismissal.” Ibid. “Such a request must be made either in writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” Ibid.

“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” Ibid. “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.” Ibid. “The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to.” Ibid. “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Ibid. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 “expressly provides for the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Id. at p. 1183.

B.        Discussion  

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Harlan M. Reese (“Reese”), declares that on September 3, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant Sabah entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal (the “Agreement”), in which Defendant Sabah agreed to make monthly payments to settle this matter. (Reese Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) This action was dismissed on September 7, 2021 with the reservation to vacate and enter judgment upon breach. (Reese Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit B.) Defendant Sabah made monthly payments pursuant to the Agreement totaling $700.00 but has since defaulted on the payments. (Reese Decl., ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, on or about September 11, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Defendant Sabah a default letter regarding the missed payments. (Reese Decl., ¶ 5; Exhibit C.)

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities, proposed order, and declaration of counsel request entry of judgment against Defendant Sabah. Defendant Sabah, however, did not sign the Agreement as such agreement is only between Plaintiff and Defendant Karzar. (Reese Decl., Exhibit A.) The Court cannot enter judgment against Defendant Sabah because he was not a party to the Agreement. Moreover, as stated above, Plaintiff has not corrected the defects identified by the Court in its February 1, 2024 order. The Agreement contradicts counsel’s statement in her declaration that Plaintiff and Defendant Sabah entered into a settlement agreement. The Court finds that there is not a binding settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Sabah based on the record before the Court.

The Motion is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II.        Conclusion

            In sum, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.