Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 21STLC05409, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC05409, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

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. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 21STLC05409 Hearing Date: October 2, 2023 Dept: 25

Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Taijahn Linzy Reese

21STLC05409

I. Background

On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Taijahn Linzy Reese (“Reese”) and Linda Anne Hollins (“Hollins”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident.

At this time, Plaintiff moves to enforce the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) pursuant to CCP § 664.6. The Motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff attests the Agreement was reached for the total amount of $7,574.87. Plaintiff avers the terms of the Agreement required Defendant Reese to make payments of $400.00 per month from September 2, 2021, to February 2, 2023, and then $374.87 paid on March 2, 2023, in exchange for Plaintiff’s dismissal of her claims against Defendant Reese. (Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 2:3-13.) This Court has retained jurisdiction over the parties to enforce settlement until performance in full terms of the Agreement. (Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 4:1-3.)

To date, Defendant Reese has paid $2,000. (Tapper Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Defendant Reese has not made a payment since January 2, 2023. (Tapper Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff seeks Judgment be entered against Defendant Reese for the sum of $6,862.13. (Tapper Decl., ¶ 5.) The sum is calculated in the amount as $5,574.87 in unpaid principal, $991.26 interest at a 10% per annum on the unpaid principal, $296.00 in court costs. (Tapper Decl., ¶ 5.) The Stipulation allows for interest and court costs. (Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 2:3-4.)

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP § 664.6: “If 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.”

For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

(CCP §664.6(b).)

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Thus, to enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)

“If no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed.” (Civ. Code, § 1657; see also Patel v. Liebermensch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 344, 352, fn. omitted [“In the absence of a specified time of payment, a reasonable period is allowable under Civil Code section 1657.”].)

The Agreement submitted by Plaintiff is signed by Plaintiff and Defendant Reese. (Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 5.) Further, the agreement contains all material terms for the settlement, and Defendants have not been dismissed. (Weddington Productions, supra, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 797-98; Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 4:1-3.) Accordingly, the statutory requirements of Section 664.6 have been met.

Furthermore, the Agreement provides in pertinent part the terms of the payment and payment due dates:

Monetary Consideration. Defendant Reese agreed to pay the total sum of seven thousand five hundred seventy-four dollars and eighty-seven cents ($7,574.87) to Plaintiff (the "Settlement Amount")', as set forth below:

…

(a) The sum of $ 400.00 shall be paid on or before the 2nd of each month from September 2, 2021, to February 2, 2023; and

(b) The sum of $ 374.87 shall be paid on March 2, 2023.

...

5. Upon the failure of DEFENDANT to make the installment payments hereinabove provided for, PLAINTIFF may cause this Stipulation to be filed with the above-entitled court, along with a Declaration of PLAINTIFF or PLAINTIFF's counsel of record, reciting such default in payment and setting forth the full amount then owing, that is, the amount set forth in Paragraph 1 hereinabove, less credit for all payments made prior to default, plus any additional court costs hereinafter incurred by PLAINTIFF.

(Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 2:9-13 and 3:1-9.) (emphasis original.)

The Agreement also provides in pertinent part that awarding of interest and court costs may be entered:

In favor of PLAINTIFF and against said DEFENDANT for damages in the principal sum of $ 7,574.87, plus interest from July 4 21, 2021 (date of the filing of this complaint) and court costs.

(Tapper Decl., Exhibit A at pg. 2:2-4.) (emphasis original.)

The Agreement straightforwardly provides express terms for breach of the contract, and the award of reasonable interest and costs in enforcement of the agreement. Defendant Reese does not oppose this motion and thus does not present any argument that the specific terms of the Agreement are unenforceable, or that the parties did not come to a meeting of the minds on all material points when effectuating the subject agreement.

It is undisputed that Defendant Reese failed to make payments on the principal remaining amount of $5,574.87, after January 2,2023. Furthermore, the Agreement provides terms for recovery for judgment interest and costs. The Agreement does not stipulate the interest rate. Plaintiff argues a 10% per annum interest rate is reasonable. Pursuant to Cal. Const. Art XV, 1, interest shall be 7 percent per annum. From the date of the breach on January 2, 2023, based on $5,574.87 at 7% per annum is $323.35. Costs for filing and service of process totaled $296.00.

III. Conclusion

Therefore, the motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED against Defendant Reese for the unpaid remaining amount of $5574.87, $296.00 in costs, and $323.35 for interest. The Court intends to enter judgment in the total sum of $6,194.22.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.