Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 19STLC08508, Date: 2023-11-06 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. Baylis, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT KRISTIN BAYLIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000.00 PRINCIPAL AND $500.00 COSTS.

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action against Defendant Kristin Baylis (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on November 7, 2019. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a copy of the parties’ settlement agreement with a request for dismissal and retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The Court dismissed the action pursuant to the stipulation on the same date. (Stip and Order, filed 10/18/22.)

On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement, and Enter Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The instant 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.) Plaintiff has demonstrated the settlement agreement complies with the statutory requirements set forth above as it was signed by both parties and their attorneys. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, p. 3.)

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, Reese Decl., Exh. A, ¶3.)

The settlement provides that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $7,290.71 through an initial payment from Defendant’s insurer of $3,290.71 followed by Defendant’s monthly payments starting on July September 5, 2022. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendant’s default, Plaintiff would seek judgment in the settlement amount, less any monies paid, plus costs not to exceed $500.00. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.) Payments of $3,290.71 were made towards the settlement, after which Defendant defaulted. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. C.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant in the amount of $4,000.00 principal ($7,290.71 - $3,290.71) and $500.000 costs. (Id. at ¶7.)