Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC02016, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC02016 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024
Case Name: GEICO
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation v. SAMUEL DENIS; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive
Case No.: 22STLC02016
Motion: Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Geico Insurance Company
Responding Party: Unopposed
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement is GRANTED IN PART.
The
Dismissal entered on 04/07/2023 is set aside and vacated.
The Court will enforce the Agreement and enter judgment
thereto but only in the amount of $8,525.19 pursuant to the Court’s discussion stated
below.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from the breach of a promissory note. On March 28, 2022,
Plaintiff Geico Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendant Samuel Denis (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, alleging a
single cause of action for common counts.
On March
28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation, Settlement, Agreement and Release (the
“Agreement”), which was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant. Pursuant
to the Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff “agreed to
accept the principal sum of $9,020.01, plus filing fees in the sum of $450.00,
plus service fees in the sum of $333.75, plus mandatory E-filing fees in the
sum of $92.90 for the total sum of $9,896.66 to be paid as follows: “Defendants
will make payments of $82.47 installments, commencing April 28, 2023, and
continuing on the 28th day of each and every month, thereafter until paid in
full.” (Agreement, ¶ 3.) Defendant agreed to no grace period and no notice of
default and that, if payment was not received on or before the due date as set
forth in paragraph 3 of the Agreement, judgment may be entered without notice
in the sum of $9,020.01, plus first appearance fees in the sum of $450.00, less
payments received. (Agreement, ¶ 6.) The parties agreed for the Court to retain
jurisdiction until performance in full of the Agreement pursuant to CCP §
664.6. (Agreement, ¶ 7.)
On April
7, 2023, the Court entered an order indicating that, pursuant to the settlement
terms set forth in the Agreement, the parties specifically request that the
Court retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until
performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (04/07/23 Order.) The Court
dismissed the case per CCP § 664.6. (04/07/23 Order.)
On
February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed Motion to
Enforce Settlement. As of April 23, 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).)
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff
requests that the Court enter an order enforcing the terms of the settlement
agreement between the parties pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Plaintiff argues that
the Court has authority to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement between the parties and argues that the Court should enforce
the settlement agreement.
OPPOSITION
No
opposition brief was filed as of April 23, 2024.
REPLY
No reply
brief was filed as of April 23, 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.
B. Discussion
In support of the motion, Plaintiff’s
counsel, Jay W. Smith (“Smith”), declares that on or about March 28, 2023,
Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to settle this case by signing the Agreement.
(Smith Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff principal sum of
$9,020.01, plus filing fees in the sum of $450.00, plus service fees in the sum
of $333.75, plus mandatory E-filing fees in the sum of $92.90, for the total
sum of $9,896.66 in monthly payments. (Smith Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1.) Defendant
made the initial payment, but he only made six payments of $87.47 for a total
amount of $494.82 “with the last payment having been made on December 12, 202[3]
and has made no further payments since then.” (Smith Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel’s
office has not received emails from Defendant stating that he will or will not
pay. (Smith Decl., ¶ 6.) Regular and consistent efforts have been made to
encourage Defendant to complete all of the obligations under the settlement.
(Smith Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant has only paid $494.82 towards the principal
amount and there is now due and owing the sum of $10,208.82. (Smith Decl., ¶
7.) Counsel requests that the Court enforce the Agreement and enter judgment
against Defendant in the principal amount of $9,020.01 plus costs in the amount
of $651.65 for a total judgment of $10,208.82. (Smith Decl., ¶ 8.)
The Court finds that it has authority to
enforce the Agreement pursuant to Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167
Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182. Plaintiff and Defendant signed the Agreement. The
Court also has jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement 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 settlement and indicates that Defendant has
breached the Agreement.
The Court does note that the
Agreement does not allow for the recovery of costs in the amount of $651.65 as
Plaintiff contends. (Smith Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1 at ¶ 6.) The Agreement provides
that in the event of default, judgment may be entered against Defendant
“without notice in the sum of $9,020.01, plus first appearance fees in the sum
of $450.00, less payments received.” (Agreement, ¶ 6.)
Counsel’s declaration does not
indicate any first appearance fees that were incurred. Thus, based on terms of
the Agreement, the Agreement does not allow for costs despite Plaintiff’s
contention to the contrary. Defendant has made payments totaling $494.82. As
such, the Court will enter judgment in the amount of $8,525.19, which
represents the amount of judgment the Court can enter pursuant to the Agreement,
which is $9,020.01, less the $494.82 in payments made by Defendant. (Smith
Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1 at ¶ 8.)
The Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is therefore GRANTED
IN PART. The Court will enforce the Agreement and enter judgment thereto but
only in the amount of $8,525.19 pursuant to the Court’s discussion above.
II. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN
PART.
The Dismissal
entered on 04/07/2023 is hereby set aside and vacated.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.