Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 18STCV07935, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 18STCV07935 Hearing Date: November 7, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ruperto Marchan Delgado, Jose Delgado Marchain (“Defendant”), and Does 1-10 for subrogation.
On March 22, 2019, Defendants Ruperto Marchan Delgado and Jose Delgado Marchain filed an answer.
On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.
On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a stipulation titled “Stipulation for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach” signed by Defendant and his counsel.
On May 13, 2022, the Court dismissed the entire case without prejudice based on the March 24, 2022 stipulation and retained jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On May 31, 2022, the Court dismissed Ruperto Marchan Delgado with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the May 13, 2022 dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant, to be heard on September 7, 2023. Defendant did not file an opposition.
On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff submitted on the Court’s tentative ruling. Defendant appeared in court and asked to be heard. The Court continued the hearing to September 21, 2023. On September 21, 2023, Defendant again appeared in court and asked to be heard. The Court continued the hearing to November 7, 2023 and granted Defendant leave to submit evidence showing that he has continued to make payments to Plaintiff.
Defendant has not filed any papers opposing the motion.
No trial date is currently set.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the judgment of dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides in part:
“(a) 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.
“(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:
“(1) The party.
“(2) An attorney who represents the party.
“(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subds. (a), (b).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated that, subject to the settlement agreement, the Court would dismiss the action without prejudice and Defendant would pay Plaintiff $15,000.00. Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $15,000.00 (the settlement amount) in full settlement of the action as follows: Defendant's insurance carrier, Alliance United Insurance, would make an initial payment of $10,000.00 by February 24, 2022. Then, beginning April 1, 2022, Defendant would begin payment of $5,000.00 with monthly payments of $50.00 per month. All subsequent payments were due on the same day of each month afterwards until the settlement amount was paid in full. Defendant’s failure to make a timely payment would be a material breach.
Under the stipulation, if Defendant failed to make a timely payment, Plaintiff would mail Defendant a letter advising that a payment was not received. If the Defendant did not make the payment within 14 days, then Plaintiff would be entitled to have any dismissal in this action set aside and judgment entered for the settlement amount, minus credit for payments received, plus any costs the Court requires to enter judgment or costs associated with any procedure to have the judgment entered. Plaintiff would be entitled to entry of judgment upon submission of a declaration by Plaintiff's counsel showing the breach and requesting that judgment be entered. Plaintiff would provide written notice of the request that judgment be entered to Defendant. Defendant could cure the default by bringing all payments current prior to entry of judgment and submitting proof to Plaintiff's counsel and the Court before entry of judgment. Otherwise, judgment would be entered against Defendant.
The parties stipulated that the Court would retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce their agreement. Based on the stipulation, the Court dismissed the action.
Plaintiff states that Defendant made monthly payments according to the stipulation totaling $350.00. However, Defendant has now defaulted on his remaining obligations under the parties’ stipulation. Plaintiff sent a letter on or around May 16, 2023, informing Defendant of the missing payments. Defendant did not make payment within fourteen days. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to have the dismissal vacated and judgment entered. The Court grants the motion.
Plaintiff’s insurance company paid $10,000.00 in settlement and Defendant made $350.00 in payments, leaving $4,650.00 owing on the settlement amount. Plaintiff requests that the Court impose costs of $584.50, consisting of a $435.00 filing fee, $89.50 service of process fee and $60.00 filing fee. The Court declines to award reimbursement of the $435 filling fee. The Court grants the request to add a $89.50 service of process fee and $60 filing fee to the judgment, resulting in a total of $4,799.50.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant Jose Delgado Marchain.
The Court VACATES the judgment of dismissal entered on May 13, 2022.
The Court enters judgment against Defendant Jose Delgado Marchain in the amount of $4,799.50, to be paid by Defendant Jose Delgado Marchain to Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.