Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC03627, Date: 2024-05-01 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: 21STLC03627 Hearing Date: May 1, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2024
Case Name: STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALBERTO MORALES; and DOES 1 to 40,
inclusive
Case No.: 21STLC03627
Motion: Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Entered
on 09/06/2022, to Enforce a Settlement Agreement and to Enter Judgment
Moving Party: Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Responding Party: Unopposed
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion Vacate
the Dismissal Entered on 09/06/2022, to Enforce a Settlement Agreement and to Enter
Judgment is GRANTED IN PART.
The Court
will enforce the Stipulation and enter judgment thereto but only in the amount
of $7,321.94 pursuant to the Court’s discussion below.
The Court
orders judgment entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of
$7,321.94.
BACKGROUND
On May
11, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Subrogation Recovery against Defendant
Alberto Morales (“Morales”) and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive. The Complaint
arises from Defendant colliding with the vehicle of Plaintiff’s insured.
On July
12, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On August
26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Settlement and Entry of Judgment
(the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation provides that Plaintiff has paid out
$15,568.13 in property damages and is seeking recovery of the monies paid in
the amount of $15,568.13. (Stipulation, ¶ 2.) The parties agreed to settle this
matter in the amount of $10,427.59. (Stipulation, ¶ 4.) Defendant’s insurance
carrier, Alliance United Insurance Company, was to pay the balance of the
policy limit available to Defendant under the policy of insurance issued by
Alliance United Insurance Company in the amount of $9,427.59. (Stipulation, ¶
4(a).) Defendant was obligated to pay the remaining balance of $1,000.00 in the
following manner: Defendant shall make payments of $50.00 per month beginning
September 25, 2022 with each payment being due, consecutively, on the 25th day
of the month thereafter until the balance of $1,000.00 is paid in full.
(Stipulation, ¶ 4(c).)
The
Stipulation provides that if Defendant “fails to make the payment, as agreed,
on the 15th day of each month, he will be deemed to be in default of this
agreement, and Plaintiff may immediately cause Judgment to be entered pursuant
to the terms set forth in [the] Stipulation for the full amount of $15,568.13,
less any monies paid by Defendant and Alliance United Insurance Company to date
of the breach.” (Stipulation, ¶ 7.) If all payments are made on time, the
payments will be interest free. (Stipulation, ¶ 4(d).) The Stipulation further
provides for a 10-day grace period for any payment articulated in the
Stipulation and provides that “Plaintiff shall give written notice to Defendant
of his default, and, Defendant shall then be allowed an additional 10 days from
the date of said written notice to cure that particular default.” (Stipulation,
¶ 9.) If Defendant fails to cure the default, then “Plaintiff shall be
permitted to request entry of judgment.” (Stipulation, ¶ 9.) The Stipulation indicates
that “[i]f the Court dismisses this matter, then the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce this stipulation pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 664.6. (Stipulation, ¶ 13.) Each party shall bear their own
attorneys’ fees and costs except as otherwise stipulated. (Stipulation, ¶ 15.)
On
September 6, 2022, the Court entered an Order Regarding Stipulation for
Settlement and Entry of Judgment (the “Order”) which dismissed this action
without prejudice in its entirety but allowed the Court to retain jurisdiction
to enforce the Stipulation pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (09/06/22 Order.)
On
September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second Stipulation for Settlement and
Entry of Judgment; however, such document was rejected by the Clerk as it was a
duplicate document submitted for e-Filing. (09/26/22 Notice of Rejection of
Electronic Filing.)
On
October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Settlement of Entire
Case.
On
February 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed Motion to Vacate
the Dismissal and Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment.
As of April 29, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the motion was
required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the
hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).)
Plaintiff
moves for an order enforcing the Stipulation and entering “judgment against
Defendant in the amount of $9,062.46. This amount is comprised of the principal
settlement amount, plus interest accrued thereon at 7% per annum, court costs,
and attorney’s fees, less payments received from Defendant and Defendant’s
insurance carrier.” (Motion at p. 1:27-2:3.)
Also, on
February 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a Memorandum of Costs in which
Plaintiff requests costs in the amount of $1,740.52.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff contends
that the parties entered into an enforceable agreement and the Court should
enter judgment against Defendant thereto. Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled
to interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
OPPOSITION
No
opposition brief was filed as of April 29, 2024.
REPLY
No reply
brief was filed as of April 29, 2024.
ANALYSIS
I. Enforcing
the Settlement Agreement
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. “It is widely recognized that the courts are not at
liberty to revise an agreement under the guise of construing it.” Series AGI Est Linn of Appian Group Investors
DE, LLC v. Eves (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164. A prevailing party is entitled to its costs in
any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b).) A prevailing party is a party with a
net monetary recovery. (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) “Except as attorney’s fees are
specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of
attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied,
of the parties.” (CCP § 1021.)
B. Discussion
In support of the motion, Plaintiff’s
counsel, Richard L. Mahfouz (“Mahfouz”), provides a declaration. Counsel declares
that: on August 9, 2022, a settlement agreement was reached wherein the parties
agreed to settle the above captioned matter for $10,427.59 pursuant to the
Stipulation. (Mahfouz Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. A.) Defendant was required to pay
Plaintiff a total of $1,000.00 by a $50.00 down payment upon signing of the
Stipulation, and no later than September 25, 2022, and then in installments of
$50.00 on the twenty-fifth of each calendar month thereafter until the balance
was paid in full. (Id.) Defendant’s insurance carrier, Alliance United Insurance
Company, was to pay Plaintiff $9,427.59. (Id.) Alliance United Insurance
Company made a payment to Plaintiff on August 16, 2022, in the amount of
$9,427.59. (Id., ¶ 7.) To date, Plaintiff has only received $100.00 from
Defendant and Defendant is deemed to be in default of the Stipulation. (Id.,
¶ 9.) Counsel’s office provided written notice of the default to Defendant on
three separate occasions. (Id., ¶ 9; Exh. B.) Defendant has failed to
remedy his default. (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff requests that the Court
enforce the Stipulation and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $9,062.46.
(Id., ¶ 11.)
Counsel states that the requested
judgment of $9,062.46 is comprised of the principal settlement amount of
$15,568.13, plus interest of $1,281.40, which accrued at the legal rate of 7%
per annum since the default date of December 25, 2022, plus costs of $536.44,
plus attorney’s fees of $1,204.08, less payments received by Defendant and
Defendant’s insurance carrier in of $9,527.59. (Id., ¶ 12.)
The Court finds that it has authority to
enforce the Stipulation pursuant to Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167
Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. Plaintiff and Defendant signed the Stipulation. The
Court also has jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation as the parties
explicitly requested—and furthermore agreed—that the Court would retain
jurisdiction to enforce such agreement. The Court furthermore determines that
the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement. The declaration of
Plaintiff’s counsel sets forth the terms of the Stipulation and indicates that
Defendant has breached the Stipulation.
Civ. Code § 3288 “permits
discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims.” Greater
Westchester Homeowners Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 102.
Prejudgment interest is allowable “only if the damages [are] certain, or
capable of being made certain by calculation.” County of Los Angeles v.
Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1123.
The Court finds that Plaintiff
is entitled to interest of $1,281.40 as the Stipulation set forth that Defendant’s
payments would be interest free if all payments were made on time.
(Stipulation, ¶ 4(d).) Defendant, however, has breached the Stipulation by
failing to make the required payments.
The Court notes that Plaintiff
will obtain a net monetary recovery against Defendant once judgment is entered in
its favor; however, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is entitled to
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,204.08 or costs in the amount of $536.44.
(Mahfouz Decl., ¶ 12.) Here, the Stipulation does not allow for an award of
attorney’s fees and costs and explicitly provides that “[e]ach side shall bear
their own costs and attorney’s fees relating to this matter.” (Stipulation, ¶
15.) There is no provision in the Stipulation providing for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff in the event of default. (Stipulation, ¶
7.) The Stipulation clearly states that, in the event of Defendant’s default, judgment
will “be entered pursuant to the terms set forth in [the] Stipulation for the
full amount of $15,568.13, less any monies paid by Defendant and Alliance
United Insurance Company to date of the breach.” (Stipulation, ¶ 7.) The Court
will not rewrite the Stipulation between the parties. Series AGI Est Linn of Appian Group Investors
DE, LLC v. Eves, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th 156, 164. The Court
therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s request for court costs and attorney’s fees.
The Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and to Enforce a
Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is therefore GRANTED IN PART. The Court
will enforce the Stipulation and enter judgment thereto but only in the amount
of $7,321.94, which represents the settlement amount of $15,568.13 minus
payments collectively received from Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier
in the amount of $9,527.59 plus interest in the sum of $1,281.40.
II. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN
PART.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.