Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV41713, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV41713    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this motor vehicle negligence action against Defendant Max Alexander Infante (“Defendant”).

On September 4, 2020, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6 based on the parties’ stipulation.

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment under CCP § 664.6. The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

CCP section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.)

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917 [quoting In re Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 967) (alteration in original).) “‘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.’” (Id. (quoting CCP section 664.6) (emphasis in original).) “‘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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation filed on August 31, 2020. The Court retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6. As the stipulation complies with Section 664.6 requirements, the Court has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation in this action.

Based on the stipulation, Defendant agreed to have Judgment entered in Plaintiffs favor in the sum of$26,764.69. That obligation would have been discharged had Defendant paid the sum of $17,431.00 in monthly payments of $75.00. (Benson Decl., ¶4, Exh. 1.) Defendant made payments in the total sum of $2,350.00. Defendant's insurance carrier Infinity paid a total of$8,431.00 (the Defendant's policy limits), leaving a balance due and owing in the sum of $6,650.00 with the last payment received on April17, 2023. (Id. at ¶5.) A default payment letter was sent to Defendant on September 19, 2023 advising Defendant of the default and the balance then due in the sum of $6,650.00. (Id. at ¶6, Exh. 2.) Defendant has failed to pay any money since the Notice of Default was sent. (Id. at ¶7.) Based thereon, Plaintiff requests judgment in its favor the sum of $26,764.69, less payments received of $10,781.00, for a total principal of $15,983.69, plus filing costs of $72.00 for this Motion, for a total judgment entered in the sum of $16,055.69. This amount is warranted under Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the stipulation.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant has breached the agreement and failed to make the required installment payments. Accordingly, the motion is granted in the amount requested.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.      

Moving Party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

        Dated this 2nd day of February 2024