Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV31465, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
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.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 20STCV31465 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: 30
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JESUS BLANCO, et al.
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Jesus Blanco in the amount of $8,900.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Background
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a complaint for subrogation against Defendants Jesus Blanco and Fernanda Rivera.
On July 3, 2023, the case was dismissed after the parties stipulated for dismissal due to settlement. The Court retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6.
On February 7, 2024, State Farm filed a motion to set aside dismissal and for entry of judgment. No opposition has been filed.
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.)
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks a court order setting aside the dismissal and entering judgment against Defendant Jesus Blanco pursuant to CCP section 664.6.
A. Retention of Jurisdiction
“‘[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).)
Here, the parties filed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (“Stipulation”) containing the parties’ agreement for the court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6 to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and enter judgment in the event of default. (Espinosa Decl., ¶ 2-3, Exs. A-B.) The Stipulation was signed by the parties and submitted to the Court along with an order for dismissal and court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6 prior to dismissal of this case. The Court entered the order for dismissal and court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6 on July 3, 2023. As the Stipulation complies with CCP section 664.6 requirements, the Court has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation in this action.
B. Entry of Judgment
Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, Defendant would pay Plaintiff a total of $13,400 as follows: $5,000 to be paid by Defendant’s insurance carrier, and the remainder to be paid by Defendant, by making monthly payments of $70 beginning April 1, 2023, until paid in full. (Id., Ex. A, ¶ 2.) The Stipulation provides that “If defendant fails to make a timely payment, said failure is a material breach. In such event, plaintiff will mail defendant a letter advising that a payment has not been received. If the payment is not made within 14 days, then plaintiff will 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 associated with entering judgment, not to exceed $500.” (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant’s insurance carrier made a one-time payment in the amount of $5,000. (Espinosa Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant failed to many any monthly payments pursuant to the stipulation; thus, Defendant defaulted. (Id., ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, on or about October 30, 2023, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a default letter regarding the missed payments. (Id., ¶ 5; Ex. C.) Pursuant to the terms set forth in the Agreement, since payment was not made within fourteen (14) days, Plaintiff is entitled to have any dismissal in this action set aside and judgment entered, minus credit for payments received. (Id., ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Defendant Blanco in a total amount of $8,900 calculated as follows:
The principal amount: $13,400
Costs: $500
Less payments made by or on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff: $5,000
Total: $8,900
As Defendant has defaulted, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of such judgment under the Stipulation. As such, the Court grants the motion and enters judgment in the amount of $8,900 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Jesus Blanco in the amount of $8,900.