Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC02339, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02339    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, April 15, 2024

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALFREDO NUNEZ, MARIA DELOSANGELES aka MARIA DURAN aka MARIA DE LOS ANGELES MARTINEZ MOSQUEDA, and DOES 1-40, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STLC02339

Motion:                                   Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 Against Defendant Alfredo Nunez

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

 

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal Entered on 08/23/2023 and to Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

 

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Alfredo Nunez in the amount of $4,000.00.

 

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 April 02, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 08, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On April 07, 2022, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed an automobile subrogation action against Defendants Alfredo Nunez (“Nunez”) and Maria Delosangeles aka Maria Duran aka Maria De Los Angeles Mosqueda (“Delosangeles”) (collectively “Defendants”).

 

Defendants collectively filed their Answer to the Complaint on September 19, 2022.

 

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation between itself and Defendant Nunez, indicating that the parties had reached a settlement in the case for $8,500.00 and requested that the case to be dismissed without prejudice.

 

On August 23, 2023, the Court ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal, with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant CCP § 664.6.

 

On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

Plaintiff prays for the Court to set aside the dismissal entered on August 23, 2023, and enter judgment against Defendant Nunez in the sum of $4,000.00 for the following: the principal amount of $8,500.00 less $5,000.00 in payments made by Nunez’s insurance carrier, plus court cost totaling $500.00 consisting of $370.00 for the Complaint filing fee, $80.00 for the service of process fee, and $60.00 for the motion fee (costs are limited to $500.00 per the agreement). Plaintiff brings the motion under CCP § 664.6, asserting that Nunez failed to make any payments per the parties’ Agreement. Plaintiff states that it had given Nunez notice regarding his default in payment but has not received any response correcting his default. Thus, because of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff brings the instant motion.

 

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, the parties signed a stipulation containing the parties’ agreement for the Court to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default. (See 08-17-23 Stipulation.) Before dismissing the action, the parties signed the Stipulation and submitted it to the Court. (Id. at p. 3.) On August 23, 2023, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice, according to the Stipulation, and expressly stated that it “shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.” (See 08-23-23 Order.) Therefore, the Court finds that the Stipulation complies with the requirements under CCP § 664.6, and it has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation in this action.

 

B. Entry of Judgment

 

The Settlement Agreement, filed on August 17, 2023, provides that the parties agreed to settle the matter for a principal sum of $8,500.00, with Defendant’s insurance carrier making an initial payment of $5,000.00 by May 25, 2023. (Harlan M. Reese, Esq. Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant would subsequently make monthly payments of $100.00 beginning on June 15, 2023, until the remaining settlement amount was paid in full. (Id.) Plaintiff provides the Court with the declaration of its counsel who avers that Nunez’s insurance carrier made the one-time payment of $5,000.00. (Id. ¶ 4.) Counsel states that Nunez failed to make any monthly payments pursuant to the Agreement thus putting Nunez into default (Id. ¶ 5.) Counsel later avers that, per the agreement, on or about November 20, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Nunez a default letter regarding the missed payments. (Id. ¶ 6.; Exh. C.) Counsel states that the Agreement provides that if no payment correcting the default is made within fourteen (14) days of written notice, Plaintiff was entitled to file a motion setting aside the dismissal and have judgment entered. (Id. ¶ 7; Exh. A p. 2.) Thus, due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff requested that a judgment be entered against the Defendant. (Id. ¶ 8.)

The Court finds the Settlement Agreement valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6. Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant Nunez has not made any payments or cured the default despite Plaintiff sending notice. (Reese Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.) Therefore, since a valid and signed settlement agreement between the parties has been breached, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enter judgment, the motion satisfies the requirements under CCP § 664.6.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. Dismissal entered on August 23, 2023, is vacated. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Nunez in the amount of $4,000.00 for the following: the principal amount of $8,500.00 less $5,000.00 in payments made by Nunez’s insurance carrier, plus court cost totaling $500.00 consisting of $370.00 for the Complaint filing fee, $80.00 for the service of process fee, and $60.00 for the motion fee (costs are limited to $500.00 per the agreement).

 

III.       Conclusion

           

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.’s Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Entered on 08/23/2023 and to  Enter Judgment is GRANTED.

 

Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant Alfredo Nunez in the amount of $4,000.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.