Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: "NationalCollegiateStudentLoanTrust2007-4,aDelawarestatutorytrustsvs.Durham", Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Pltf. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, A Delaware St
Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal

The court grants Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, A Delaware Statutory Trust(s)’ Motion to vacate the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant Matthew Durham in the amount of $34,359.66 pursuant to CCP §664.6.

Legal Standard

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) Section 664.6 authorizes a court to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit only if certain requirements are met.  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) 

Merits

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff sued Defendants Matthew Durham for breach of contract for failing to pay back a loan. Plaintiff settled with Durham prior to trial. (ROA 40). Plaintiff and Durham signed and filed a fully executed Settlement Agreement/ Stipulated Judgment. (ROA 58) The Stipulated Judgment indicates in paras. 1, 4, and 9 that the case can be reopened and the court retains jurisdiction under 664.6. (ROA 58)

Additionally, the court signed an Order dismissing the case without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664.6. (ROA 68) The Order specifically held that “…this Court shall retain jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to set aside said dismissal, and enter a Judgment upon showing of default of the terms of the Stipulation.” (Id.) Thus, the court has jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. (See also Canal Street, Ltd. v. Sorich (2000) 77 CA4th 602, 608; Schiro v. Curci (1990) 220 CA3d 840, 844-845.)

Defendant defaulted on 9/26/19, but up untl that date had paid $2,750. (Elliott Decl., ¶9.)

The court has verified that the Stipulated Agreement permits the amounts delineated in the Proposed Judgment. The court will sign the Proposed Judgment.