Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC06860, Date: 2023-11-09 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: 22STLC06860 Hearing Date: November 9, 2023 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023
Case Name: GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. TYSEAN BENNIE DENT aka TYSEAN DENT aka TYSEAN B.
DENT, and DOES 1 through 10
Case No.: 22STLC06860
Motion: Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Geico Insurance Company
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Geico Insurance Company’s
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On October
14, 2022, Plaintiff Geico General Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) commenced
this action against Defendants Tysean Bennie Dent aka Tysean Dent aka Tysean B.
Dent (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, asserting one cause of
action for common counts.
The
Complaint alleges the following. “On August 5, 2022, Defendant and plaintiff
entered into a promissory agreement whereby Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff
the sum of $12,680.81, monthly installments of $ 105.67 commencing on August
16, 2022, and continuing on the 16th of every month, with a final
payment of $ 106.08 thereafter until paid in full. Defendant further agreed
that should be commenced to enforce any of the terms of this agreement,
defendant would pay all court costs, and attorney fees. ¶ Defendant defaulted in the terms of
agreement on August 17, 2022, by failing to pay as agreed, leaving a balance
owing in the sum of $ 12,680.81. Plaintiff has previously made demand upon
defendant, but no payments have been forthcoming.” (Attachment to Complaint,
First Cause of Action for Common Counts, p. 1.)
On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement.
As of November 7, 2023, no opposition to the motion has been filed.
MOVING PARTY’S
POSITION
Plaintiff
moves for judgment against Defendant pursuant to a written agreement the
parties signed on October 25, 2022 (the “Settlement Agreement”). Pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $12,680.81 (with no
interest) as follows: $101.86 installments beginning November 16, 2022, and
continuing on the 16th day of each and every month thereafter until paid in
full. Defendant defaulted in the terms of the agreement on August 17, 2022, by
failing to pay as agreed. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a judgment of $13,070.67
entered against the Defendant. The proposed money judgment consists of “the
principal amount of $12,680.81, plus filing fees in the sum of $740.00, plus
service fees in the sum of $85.00, plus mandatory efiling fees in the sum of
$25.53, less payments received in the sum of $713.02, plus interest at the rate
of 7% per annum on the principal amount of $12,680.81 from date of last payment
on May 5, 2023 through August 16, 2023 ….” (Notice of Motion, p. 2:2-6.)
OPPOSITION
None.
REPLY
None.
ANALYSIS
I. MOTION TO
ENFORCE JUDGMENT
A. Legal
Standard
Code of
Civil Procedure section 664.6 (“CCP section 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).
“[T]he California Constitution provides for prejudgment
interest at seven percent per annum. (Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1.) However,
Civil Code section 3289 provides that the legal rate of interest chargeable
after the breach of a contract which does not stipulate an interest rate is 10
percent per annum.” (Pro Value Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan Service
Corp. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 579, 582–583.)
B. Discussion
Plaintiff’s
counsel has attached a copy of the Settlement Agreement. (Motion, declaration
of Jay W. Smith (“Smith Decl.”), ¶
4; Exhibit 1 – a copy of the Settlement Agreement.)
According to the plain terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant
“agree[d] to pay GEICO … the principal sum of $12,680.81, … filling fees in the
sum of $740.00, … service fees in the sum $85.00, …[and] mandatory E-filing
fees in the sum of $25.53, for the total sum of $13,531.34 … as follows:
$101.86 installments, beginning November 16, 2022, and continuing on the 16th
day of each and every month thereafter until paid in full.” (Exhibit 1, p. 3, ¶ 3.)
Defendant further “agree[d] to no grace period and to no
notice of Default, should payment not be received on or before the due date as
set forth in Paragraph 3. If payment [was] not received on or before the due
date as set forth …[in the Settlement Agreement] then [the Defendant agreed
that] Judgment may be entered against [him] without notice in the principal
amount of $13,531.34, plus court costs and interest, less payments received.”
(Exhibit 1, p. 2, ¶ 6.)
The parties agreed that the Court may retain jurisdiction
to enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to CCP section 664.6. (Exhibit 1,
p. 2, ¶ 7.)
The Court notes that the Settlement
Agreement was signed by Defendant and Plaintiff’s Authorized Agent Rich Gallion,
on October 25, 2022, after this case was filed. (Exhibit 1, p. 5.)
Based on the above, the Court finds
that the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirement of CCP section 664.6
because it is a writing signed by the parties.
According to the motion, Defendant
has paid $713.02 towards the principal balance of $12,680.81. (Motion, p.
7:25-26.)
Therefore, Plaintiff is only
seeking a judgment of $13,070.67, which consists of the principal balance of $11,967.79
(originally $12,680.81 less payments of $713.02), contractual prejudgment costs
of $850.53 (i.e., filling fees of $740.00, service fees of $85.00, and
mandatory E-filing fees of $25.53), and interest of $252.35 (i.e., seven
(7) percent per annum on the principal amount of $12,680.81 from the date of
last payment on May 5 through August 16, 2023).
The Court finds the proposed
judgment proper given the terms of the Settlement Agreement and in light of
Defendant’s failure to file an opposition disputing the validity of the
agreement and his default.
II. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Geico Insurance
Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. Judgment is
entered against Defendant Tysean Bennie Dent aka
Tysean Dent aka Tysean B. Dent for $13,070.67.
Moving Party to give notice to any Party legally entitled.