Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC06300, Date: 2023-10-19 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: 20STLC06300    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, October 19, 2023

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation v. DIANA PRIETO, an individual; and DOES 1-10

Case No.:                                20STLC06300

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None.

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 is GRANTED.

                                                Plaintiff is instructed to file a revised proposed judgment that reflects this order

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Diana Prieto (“Defendant”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile collision between Defendant, on the one hand, and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy, on the other hand.  See generally Compl.  Plaintiff compensated the insured for claimed damages in the amount of $24,146.26 and filed the instant claim against Defendant for allegedly causing the damages.  Id. at. pp. 2-3.  On January 7, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. Subsequently, on September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach (“Stipulation”), signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $6,367.00.  See September 6, 2022 Stipulation and Order.  On September 8, 2022, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation.  See September 8, 2022 Order.  

On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“Motion”). Plaintiff submits the motion on the moving papers and will not appear at the hearing.  Motion at pg. 2.

On September 13, 2023, the Court, with Hon. Thomas J. Griego presiding, found that the Stipulation sufficiently complies with the requirements set forth under CCP § 664.6 for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.  See September 13, 2023 Minute Order at pp. 3-4.  The Court also determined that the Motion was not properly served because defense counsel’s physical and email address had changed, and the proof of service filed on August 7, 2023 did not properly reflect these new addresses.  Id. at pg. 5..As a result, the Court continued the matter in order to permit Plaintiff to effectuate service on Defendant.  Ibid.

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration regarding service of the Motion.  No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff asserts that the parties signed the Stipulation that contains 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. The Court retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.  Pursuant to the Stipulation, an initial payment of $4,367.00 had to be made by July 20, 2022, and beginning on August 20, 2022, monthly payments of $50.00 must be made until the settlement is paid in full.  While Defendant’s insurance carrier made the agreed upon one-time payment of $4,367, Defendant has failed to make any monthly payments.  Despite Plaintiff’s attempt to remind Defendant of her obligations under the Stipulation, Defendant remains in default.  Also, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of costs per the Stipulation.

            Based on the supplemental declaration filed on September 27, 2023, Plaintiff served the Motion and the notice of continuance on Defendant’s counsel, based on the updated addresses.

OPPOSITION

            None filed as of October 16, 2023.

REPLY

            None filed as of October 16, 2023.

ANALYSIS

I.          Motion to Enforce Settlement

A.        Legal Standard

“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(a).

B.        Procedural Issues

            As previously determined, the Stipulation complies with the requirements set forth under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.  See September 13, 2023 Minute Order at pg. 4.  Moreover, on the issue of effectuating service, Plaintiff has filed a supplemental declaration indicating that Plaintiff served Defendant, through her counsels of record, on September 20, 2023 by mail and email with Motion, the notice of default, and the notice of continuance.  See Espinosa Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. 1-2.  It is noted that the addresses listed within the exhibits enclosed in the supplemental declaration are distinct from the address identified in the proof of service filed on August 7, 2022 and comport with the defense counsels’ Attorney Profiles on the State Bar of California website.  Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has been properly served with the Motion.

C.        Merits

            Here, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the Stipulation that was entered between the parties on September 6, 2022.  Notice of Motion at pg. 1. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has defaulted on payments and Plaintiff is seeking to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to the Stipulation.  Motion at pp. 1-2.  The Stipulation Agreement filed on September 6, 2022, provides that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $6,367.00.  See Stipulation at ¶ 2. Defendant’s insurance carrier has made the agreed upon one-time payment of $4,367.00.  Reese Decl. ¶ 4.  Thereafter, Defendant was obligated to make monthly payments of $50 beginning on August 20, 2022, but Defendant has not made any monthly payments.  Ibid.  Around May 31, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a letter regarding the missed payments as required under the Stipulation; however, Defendant still did not make any payments.  Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. C.  This notice was later re-mailed to Defendant on September 20, 2023.  Espinosa Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. 1-2.

            Because Defendant did 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.”  See Stipulation at ¶ 3.  Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal set aside and judgment entered in the amount of $2,519.50 as follows: $6,367.00 (settlement amount), minus $4,367.00 (payment made by Defendant’s insurance carrier), plus $519.50 (court costs).  Reese Decl. at ¶ 7.)  The court costs consist of $370 filing fee, $89.50 service fee, and $60 motion fee.  Ibid.  The Court notes that Plaintiff is entitled to costs pursuant to the Stipulation, however, the amount requested may not exceed $500.  Stipulation at ¶ 3.  As a result, the judgment amount must be reduced accordingly.

Therefore, because the Stipulation is valid under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 and Defendant is in breach of the Stipulation, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

III.       Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is instructed to file a revised proposed judgment that reflects this order.