Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 18STLC07799, Date: 2023-08-10 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.

State Farm v. Bustamante, et al.

RENEWED MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,422.80 PRINCIPAL AND $72.00 COSTS.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Armando Sosa Bustamante (“Defendant”) on June 6, 2018. Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint on February 21, 2019. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Conditional Notice of Settlement. A second lawsuit between the parties was filed on November 30, 2018 in LASC Case No. 18STLC14502 but the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the cases was denied on February 11, 2020. (Stipulation to Consolidate, filed 02/11/20.)

On April 23, 2020, 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 for Entry of Judgment and Order, 04/23/20.)

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment (“the Motion”) on May 18, 2023. The Motion came for hearing on August 10, 2023 and was denied. (Minute Order, 08/10/23.) On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment (“the Renewed Motion”). The Renewed Motion initially came for hearing on November 7, 2023, at which time Plaintiff requested and was granted a 30-day continuance. (Minute Order, 11/07/23.) On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support of the Renewed Motion. No opposition has been filed to date.

When a party seeks the same relief that was previously denied, it must bring a renewed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43, fn. 11; see also Tate v. Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 156-157.) When a motion has been denied in whole or in part, the moving party may apply again for the same relief at a later time only upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b); see Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 969-970.)

The Renewed Motion is supported by the supplemental declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, which sets forth new facts regarding the judgment sought to be entered in this action. Specifically, that instead of now seeking a settlement with respect to this action and LASC Case No. 18STLC14502, Plaintiff only seeks a settlement of this action. The Renewed 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 Plaintiff’s attorney. (Motion, Benson Decl., Exh. 1, p. 4.)

Furthermore, the request for retention of jurisdiction must 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, Benson Decl., Exh. 1, ¶11.) 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 $24,180.80 by way of $7,830.80 from insurance, followed by monthly payments starting on February 15, 2020. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendant defaults, judgment in the amount of $37,196.36 (the combined demands of the complaints in this action and LASC Case No. 18STLC14502), less monies paid, plus costs and prejudgment interest, may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶¶1, 3.) Defendant only paid $10,830.00 towards the settlement. (Motion, Supp. Cicione Decl., ¶8.) However, Plaintiff now only seeks judgment in the settlement amount less monies paid in the amount of $13,422.80 ($24,180.80 - $10,830.00) plus costs of $72.00. (Ibid.)

Therefore, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,422.80 PRINCIPAL AND $72.00 COSTS.