Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20ATCV18021, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20ATCV18021, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20ATCV18021 Hearing Date: November 25, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Hearing Date: 11/25/24

CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV18021 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JESUS ALFONSO FRANCO GASPAR ET AL.

Moving Party: PLAINTIFF

Responding Party: UNOPPOSED

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: GRANTED IN PART

Legal Standard

CCP § 664.6 states: “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.”¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.¿ (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)¿ To enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties.¿ (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.)¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

CCP § 664.6 “require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”¿ (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)¿ CCP § 664.6’s “requirement of a ‘writing signed by the parties’ must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed.”¿ (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”].)¿ “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.”¿ (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.)

¿¿¿

Discussion

On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present suit against Defendant Jesus Gaspar seeking property damages in the sum of $56,663.58.

On January 11, 2022, the parties entered into a written Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, in which Defendant agreed to have judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $42,000.00. Under the terms of the stipulation, this obligation would be discharged if Defendant paid $28,050.00. Of that amount, $17,050.00 was to be paid by Defendant’s insurance carrier, Farmers Insurance Company, with the remaining $11,000.00 to be paid by Defendant directly, consisting of a $500.00 lump sum followed by monthly payments until the balance was satisfied.

Farmers Insurance Company paid $17,050.00, representing Defendant’s policy limits. However, Defendant only made payments totaling $1,450.00, leaving a balance of $9,550.00. Defendant’s last payment was made on April 20, 2024.

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a default payment letter, advising Defendant of the default. Despite this notice, Defendant failed to make any further payments and did not cure the default as required under the stipulation.

Plaintiff now moves the Court to set aside the dismissal of this case and to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, in favor of Plaintiff, for the stipulated amount of $42,000.00, less payments received totaling $18,500.00, leaving a balance of $23,500.00. Plaintiff also seeks $75.00 in costs for filing this motion, for a total of $23,575.00. Defendant did not file an opposition.

When the case was dismissed on May 12, 2022, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under section 664.6; thus, there is no need to set aside the dismissal and that aspect of the motion is denied. However, all requirements to enforce the settlement have been met. There was a meeting of the minds on all material terms, including the amount, scope, and payment terms of the settlement. The parties signed and filed a stipulation containing all the material terms. The stipulation/agreement is signed by all parties. Thus, the Court grants the present motion in part and enters judgment in the amount of $23,575.00 against Defendant Jesus Alfonso Franco Gaspar.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.