Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC07002, 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: 20STLC07002 Hearing Date: January 17, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024
Case Name: STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HENRY NAVIDAD MOLINA
Case No.: 20STLC07002
Motion: Motion to Set Aside Dismissal; and Enter Judgment (CCP 664.6)
Moving Party: Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co.’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is
GRANTED, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Molina for
$16,965.27.
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 January 03, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of January 09, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Henry
Navidad Molina (“Henry”) and Raul Fuentes Molina (“Raul”) (collectively
“Defendants”) 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. Plaintiff compensated the insured for
claimed damages in the amount of $19,778.32 and filed the instant claim against
Defendants for allegedly causing the damages.
On January 7, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the
Complaint.
On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Settlement.
On December 2, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the
Court dismissed Defendant Raul with prejudice.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Entry of
Judgment in the Event of Default
(“Stipulation”),
signed by both parties, to dismiss the action on the premise that Defendant would
compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $7,587.20. On December 6,
2022, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation.
On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set
Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment (“Motion”). On September 13, 2023,
the Court continued the hearing citing issues with service on Defendant’s
Counsel.
On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion.
No opposition has been filed.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff prays for the Court to set aside its dismissal and
enter judgment against Defendant in the sum of $16,965.27 for the
following: principal
amount of $19,778.32, less $3,337.20 in payments made by Defendant and his
insurance carrier, plus filing costs of $72, and lawsuit filing fee of $452.15.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s default in payments constituted a breach of the
parties’ Stipulation, thus making Plaintiff entitled to an entry of judgment by
the Court.
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 for Entry of Judgment in the Event of Default (“Stipulation”)
containing 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. (12-2-22 Stipulation ¶ 10.) Prior to
the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and
submitted to the Court. (Ibid. at pp. 4-5.) On December 6, 2022, the Court
dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation and
expressly stated that it “RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
AND PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.6.” (12-6-22
Order.) The Court finds that the Stipulation complies with § 664.6 requirements
and the Court has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the
parties’ Stipulation in this action.
B.
Entry of Judgment
The Stipulation Agreement filed on December 2, 2022, provides
that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to dismiss the action on the premise that
Defendant would compensate Plaintiff for the settlement amount of $7,587.20.
(12-2-22 Stipulation ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, Defendant’s insurance
carrier Alliance United Insurance Company would make a payment of $2,587.20
within thirty (30) days of Defendant’s execution of the agreement. (Ibid. at ¶
2(i).) Defendant would pay the remaining balance of $5,000 with a $500 down payment
on or before November 1, 2022, and subsequent $50 monthly payments commencing
on December 1, 2022, and continuing on the first day of each month, until the
balance is paid in full. (Ibid. at ¶ 2(ii).) Defendant would also be
responsible for the balance not paid by his insurance carrier. (Id. at ¶
2(i).) All parties signed the Stipulation. (Id. at pp. 4-5.)
The Stipulation also provides that Defendant will have a
fifteen (15) day grace period to make payments. (Id. at ¶ 8.) In the
event Defendant fails to make payments, Plaintiff will give written notice of
default and Defendant will have an additional ten (10) days to cure the
default. (Ibid.) If Defendant does not cure the default, “Plaintiff may
immediately cause Judgment to be entered pursuant to the terms set forth in
this Stipulation for the full amount of the agreed upon judgement as set forth
in Paragraph 1 less any monies paid to date of the breach; and shall also file
a partial Satisfaction of Judgment for all sums previously paid pursuant to
this Stipulation.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) If Defendant’s contact information
changes, he is responsible for providing written notice to Plaintiff, otherwise
Plaintiff will send the notice of default to the address indicated in the
Stipulation. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
alleging that Defendant breached the Stipulation. (Mot. pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff’s
Counsel, Susan M. Benson, states that Defendant’s insurance carrier made a
payment of $2,587.20. (Original motion Benson Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant made
payments in the total amount of $550. (Id.) On April 13, 2023, Counsel
sent default notices to Defendant to pay the remaining sum of $4,450.00. (Id.
at ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) After filing the original motion, Defendant made an additional
payment of $200 on September 12, 2023. (Amended Benson Decl. ¶ 7.) However,
this payment did not cure the entire past due balance under the Stipulation,
and as of today’s date there remains a past due balance of $250. (Id.)
Thus, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment for
Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $16,965.27 as follows:
principal amount of $19,778.32, less $3,337.20 in payments made by Defendant
and his insurance carrier, plus filing costs of $72, and lawsuit filing fee of
$452.15. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The Court finds the Stipulation to be valid and
enforceable under Code of Civil Proc. § 664.6. Plaintiff provides evidence that
Defendant stopped making payments and has not cured the default. Thus, a valid
and signed stipulation agreement was breached, and the Court retained
jurisdiction to enter judgment upon breach. Additionally, as Plaintiff has now
properly served Defendant, this motion is properly granted.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and
Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on December 06, 2022, is vacated,
and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of
$16,965.27 for the following: principal amount of $19,778.32, less $3,337.20 in payments
made by Defendant and his insurance carrier, plus filing costs of $72, and
lawsuit filing fee of $452.15.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment
is GRANTED, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Molina
for $16,965.27.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.