Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC07117, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07117    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Case Name:                             NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. FERNANDO O. GILBERT; and DOES 1-10

Case No.:                                22STLC07117

Motion:                                   Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s  Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.
The Dismissal entered on 08/01/23 is set aside and vacated.
Judgment is entered against the Defendant in the Total amount of $8,615.47 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Fernando O. Gilbert (“Defendant”) and DOES 1-10, inclusive, alleging a cause of action for Common Counts.

 

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and Release. On August 1, 2023, this Court dismissed the case pursuant to the stipulation agreement.

 

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 664.6. No opposition has been filed.

 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

            Plaintiff moves for an order enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement and judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $8,615.47 consisting of the principal amount of $7,374.10 plus costs in the amount of $1,241.37. Plaintiff argues that the settlement agreement and release requires Defendant make payments of $99.38, beginning August 1, 2023 and continuing on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter until paid in full. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant has not made any payments.

 

OPPOSITION

 

None as of 11/8/23.

 

REPLY

 

None as of 11/8/23.

 

ANALYSIS

 

I.          Motion to Enforce Settlement

A.                Legal Standard

Pursuant the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 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.” 

 

“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.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37;Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1262.) In ruling on a motion under § 664.6, the trial judge may receive oral testimony, or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994.) Where the agreement was reached at a court hearing, the court can resolve the dispute on the basis of its own notes or recollection of what was agreed to (as well as any transcripts of the proceedings). (Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.)

 

B.              Discussion

Generally, courts lose subject matter jurisdiction when an action is voluntarily dismissed. (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1009.) CCP section 664.6 provides the authority for the Court the retention of personal jurisdiction to enforce the settlement “if requested by the parties.” The stipulation as to jurisdiction must conform to the same requirements necessary for enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440.) It is not enough simply to provide for a retention of jurisdiction in the settlement agreement. (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918.) Instead, the request to retain jurisdiction must be filed with the court: “the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed.” (Ibid.; see Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 966-968 [no subject matter jurisdiction to enforce settlement per CCP § 664.6 because parties failed to ask court to retain jurisdiction before case dismissed.)

 

Here, Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) has retained the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff has provided the Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and Release, which states that “The Parties agree to Dismiss the Lawsuit pursuant to C.C.P. Section 664.6. The Los Angeles County Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the Settlement until performance in full of the terms of the Settlement.” (Smith Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) Furthermore, on August 1, 2023, this Court dismissed the case pursuant to the stipulation agreement and expressly stated that “The case is dismissed per to CCP 664.6.” (Order to Enforce the Terms of the Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and Release Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 664.6 – 8/1/23.)

 

            Moreover, the stipulation agreement was signed by both parties and required Defendant Fernando O. Gilbert (“Defendant”) to pay Plaintiff the principal sum of $7,374.10, plus filing fees in the sum of $450.00, plus service fees in the sum of $433.00, plus mandatory E-filing fees in the sum of $91.15, for a total judgment of $8,348.25 as a compromise of the disputed claim. (Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and Release Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 664.6, ¶¶ 3, 5.) The stipulation agreement also required Defendant to make payments in installments of $99.38 beginning August 1, 2023 and continuing on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter until paid in full. (Id.) Plaintiff states that Defendant has made zero payments. (Smith Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff further states that its counsel has not received any emails from Defendant stating he will pay anything. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff states that it regularly and consistently reached out to Defendant to encourage he complete all obligations under the stipulation agreement despite the agreement to no grace period. (Id.; Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and Release Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 664.6, ¶ 6.)

 

            Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is warranted under law. The Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, and Release is valid and enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 664.6. Plaintiff provided evidence that Defendant has not made any monthly payments since defaulting, agreed to no grace period, and agreed to no notice of default.

 

II.        Conclusion

           

Accordingly, Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.

The Dismissal entered on 08/01/23 against Defendant Fernando O. Gilbert is set aside and vacated.  Judgment is entered against the Defendant in the Total amount of $8,615.47  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.