Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 21STLC01901, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC01901, Date: 2024-02-21 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: 21STLC01901 Hearing Date: February 21, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHAD SHAAKUR SHARRIEFF

Case No.: 21STLC01901

Motion: Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (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 Company’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is GRANTED.

The Dismissal entered on 01/09/23 is set aside and vacated. Judgment is entered against

Defendant Shaakur Sharrieff in the amount of $9,720.95.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2021, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for subrogation against Chad Shaakur Sharrieff (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

On January 9, 2023, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6 based on the parties’ stipulation.

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion (“the Motion”) to set aside dismissal and enter judgment under CCP § 664.6. The motion is unopposed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff seeks to have the January 9, 2023 dismissal set aside, and judgment entered pursuant to the parties’ stipulation under CCP § 664.6.

OPPOSITION

None filed.

REPLY

None filed.

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

CCP section 664.6 provides that “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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.)

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917 [quoting In re Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 967) (alteration in original).) “‘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.’” (Id. (quoting CCP section 664.6) (emphasis in original).) “‘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).)

II. Discussion

On January 9, 2023, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation filed on January 6, 2023, 2020. The Court retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6. As the stipulation complies with Section 664.6 requirements, the Court has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation in this action.

Based on the stipulation signed by both parties, Defendant agreed to have Judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $16,530.36. That full obligation would have been discharged had Defendant paid the sum of $10,281.41 in monthly payments of $75 for one year beginning February 1, 2023, $100 for one year beginning February 1, 2024, and then $125.00 beginning February 1, 2025 and continuing until the balance was paid in full. (Benson Decl., ¶4, Exh. 1.) Defendant made payments in the total sum of $600. Defendant's insurance carrier paid a total of $6,281.41 (the Defendant's policy limits), leaving a balance due and owing in the sum of $3,400 with the last payment received on July 5, 2023. (Id. at ¶5.) A default payment letter was sent to Defendant on October 5, 2023 advising Defendant of the default and the balance then due in the sum of $3,400. (Id. at ¶6, Exh. 2.) Defendant has failed to pay any money since the Notice of Default was sent. (Id. at ¶7.) Based thereon, Plaintiff requests judgment in its favor the sum of $16,530.36, less payments received of $6,881.41, for a total principal of $9,648.95, plus filing costs of $72.00 for this Motion, for a total judgment entered in the sum of $9,720.95. (Id. at ¶9.) This amount is warranted under Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the stipulation.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant has breached the agreement and failed to make the required installment payments. Accordingly, the Motion is granted in the amount requested.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal (entered on 01/09/2023) and to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is GRANTED.

Judgment is entered in the amount of $9,720.95.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.