Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC00106, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC00106    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                               Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Case Name:                                     STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. DIEGO SAQUILA, JUAN NIMAJA, et al.

Case No.:                                           21STLC00106

Motion:                                               Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6

Moving Party:                                    Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party:                          None

Notice:                                                OK

 

Tentative Ruling:                    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 Saquila for $10,000.00.

 

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed form of Judgment consistent with

today’s Court’s ruling within 10-days from this Court’s Order.

 

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 January 06, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) commenced a subrogation complaint against Defendants Diego Saquila (“Saquila”) and Juan Nimaja (“Nimaja”) (collectively “Defendants”) seeking damages in the amount of $24,212.48.

 

Defendant Saquila provided his Answer on July 02, 2021.

 

Defendant Nimaja provided his Answer on July 06, 2021.

 

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed notice to the Court of a settlement of the entire case.

 

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment. Per the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Saquila, Saquila agreed to pay Plaintiff $14,500.00. The agreement was signed by Plaintiff and Saquila on April 10, 2023.

 

On April 13, 2023, the Court entered an order dismissing the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the “Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach” (“Stipulation”). The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement between the parties pursuant to C.C.P. 664.6.

 

On November 01, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6. No opposition has been filed.

               

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

Plaintiff prays for the Court to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant Saquila pursuant to a written agreement the parties signed on April 10, 2023. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the amount of $10,000.00 for the following: the principal amount of $14,500.00, less the later payments of $5,000.00, plus court costs Plaintiff has incurred of $500.00 consisting of: $370.00 complaint filing fee, $79.50 service of process fee, and $60.00 motion fee (the Stipulation limits costs to $500.00).

 

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, Plaintiff and Defendant Saquila signed a 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. (4-10-23 Stipulation.) Prior to the dismissal of this action, the Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court. (Id. at p. 3.) On April 13, 2023, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation and expressly stated that it “shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.” (4-13-23 Order.) Thus, the Court finds that the Stipulation complies with CCP § 664.6 requirements and it has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation in this action.

 

B. Entry of Judgment

 

The Stipulation Agreement filed on April 10, 2023, provides that the parties agreed to settle the matter for a principal sum of $14,500.00, with Saquila’s insurance carrier agreeing to pay a lump sum of $5,000.00 and Saquila subsequently making sixty (60) monthly payments of $158.34 until the sum is paid in full. (Harlan Reese Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff avers that Saquila’s insurance carrier made a one-time payment in the amount of $5,000.00. (Reese Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further states that “Defendant failed to make any monthly payments pursuant to the stipulation.” (Id. ¶ 5.) On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Saquila a notice of default letter regarding the missed payments with no payment being made fourteen (14) days after its issuance. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7; Exhibit C – a copy of the default letter.) Consequently, due to Saquila’s failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff requested that a judgment of $10,000.00 be entered against Defendant Saquila.

Here, the Court finds the Stipulation Agreement to be valid and enforceable under Code of Civil Proc. § 664.6. Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant Saquila has not made any payments and has not cured the default after Plaintiff issued notice. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7.) Thus, a valid and signed stipulation agreement has been breached, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment upon breach.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on April 13, 2023, is vacated, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Saquila in the amount of $10,000.00 for the following: the principal amount of $14,500.00, less the later payments of $5,000.00, plus court costs Plaintiff has incurred of $500.00 consisting of: $370.00 complaint filing fee, $79.50 service of process fee, and $60.00 motion fee (the Stipulation limits costs to $500.00).

 

III.           Conclusion

               

                Motion is GRANTED and judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Saquila for $10,000.00.

 

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed form of Judgment consistent with

today’s Court’s ruling within 10-days from this Court’s Order.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.