Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 18STLC02420, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STLC02420    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 26

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

SERVICE OF MOTION: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for automobile subrogation.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff moves for an order vacating the dismissal of this action and entering judgment against Defendant pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 6, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of October 6, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,450.00 PRINCIPAL AND $60.00 COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Dharanidareddy Goutireddy (“Defendant”) on February 9, 2018.

On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a copy of the 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. (Order for Settlement and Dismissal, filed 03/06/20.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment on June 9, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion to Enforce Settlement 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.) 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 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must have included 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. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, p. 3.) Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction was made in writing, by the parties, before the action was dismissed. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.) These requirements must also be met for the retention of jurisdiction to conform to the statutory language. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433 [“requests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the settlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court or in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys, spouses or other such agents. 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.”].) Therefore, the Court finds that the parties’ settlement agreement is enforceable, and the request for retention of jurisdiction is proper, under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The settlement agreement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $6,608.93 by way of $2,458.93 through insurance followed by monthly installments starting March 1, 2020. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendant defaults, judgment in the amount of the Complaint ($13,107.96), plus costs, may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor, less any amounts paid. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.)

Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration now makes clear the amount paid towards the settlement. Defendant’s insurer paid $2,458.93 as required, and Defendant made monthly payments totaling $1,700.00. (Motion, Supp. Reese Decl., ¶4.) Based on the total payment of $4,158.93, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $2,450.00 plus $60.00 in costs. (Id. at ¶7.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,450.00 PRINCIPAL AND $60.00 COSTS.

Moving party to give notice.