Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 18STLC00926 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Mercury Ins. Co. v. Porras, et al.

MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,200.00 PRINCIPAL AND $294.50 IN COSTS.

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Sergio Porras, Rosario Aceves, and Adrian Aceves (“Defendant”) on January 18, 2018. Sergio Porras and Rosario Aceves were dismissed from this action on July 2, 2019 and August 30, 2019, respectively.

On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a copy of its settlement agreement with Defendant with a request for dismissal and retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.4. The Court granted the request for dismissal with retention of jurisdiction on the same date. (Stip and Order for Dismissal, 12/23/19.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate dismissal, enforce settlement and enter judgment on January 9, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

The motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, which states in relevant part:

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, subd. (a).) Prior to January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) The current statute provides that “parties” includes “an attorney who represents the party” and an insurer’s agent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (b).) The settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) The settlement agreement here complies with the statutory requirements set forth above because it was signed by both parties and their attorneys. (Motion, Thai Decl., Exh. 1, p. 3.)

The request for retention of jurisdiction must also be made in writing, by the parties, before the action is dismissed for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [“If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.”].) The parties’ request for retention of jurisdiction complies with these requirements because it was made in writing to the Court before the action was dismissed. (Motion, Thai Decl., Exh. 1, ¶1(6).) Therefore, the Court finds that the parties’ settlement agreement is enforceable, and the request for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction is proper, under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The settlement agreement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $11,671.00 by way of a $5,671.00 payment from insurance, followed by monthly payments starting 30 days after execution of the agreement. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶1(1).) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendant defaults, judgment in the settlement amount, plus costs of $294.50, less monies paid, may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶1(4).) Defendant made total payments in the amount of $7,471.00 and thereafter defaulted. (Id. at ¶5.) Plaintiff’s motion seeks a judgment in the following amounts: $4,200.00 principal ($11,671.00 - $7,471.00), costs of $354.50, and attorney’s fees of $875.00. (Id. at ¶6.) The request for an additional $60.00 in costs and any amount of attorney’s fees is not supported by the terms of the settlement agreement or citation to any legal authority, and is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff requesting those costs and attorney’s fees as permitted by law. Therefore, judgment is to be entered in the amount of $4,200.00 principal and $294.50 costs.

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,200.00 PRINCIPAL AND $294.50 IN COSTS.