Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 20STLC00053 2022-08-01 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.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Linda Interiano (“Defendant”) on January 3, 2020. On November 12, 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 November 17, 2020. (Order for Settlement and Dismissal, filed 11/12/20.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment on April 1, 2022. The Motion initially came for hearing on May 31, 2022 and was continued to allow Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing explaining the amount remaining on Defendant’s obligation Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on June 2, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

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 $14,177.10 by way of $4,677.10 through insurance followed by monthly installments starting on November 1, 2020. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendant defaults, judgment in the settlement amount, plus costs and attorney’s fees not to exceed $500.00, may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor, less any amounts paid. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.)

However, the amount paid towards the settlement as of this date remains unclear. The initial and supplemental declarations indicate that Defendant’s insurer paid $4,677.70, despite being obligated to pay $4,677.10. (Id. at ¶4.) Plaintiff now contends that Defendant thereafter paid $1,100.00 towards the settlement before defaulting. (Motion, Supp. Reese Decl., ¶5.) This would be a total payment on $5,777.70 on behalf of Defendant ($4,677.70 + $1,100.00). However, Plaintiff calculation of the total amount paid is only $5,477.17. (See id. at ¶8.)

Despite having an opportunity to clarify the amount paid by Defendant’s insurer and Defendant towards the settlement agreement, the supplemental declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel only makes matters more confusing. Therefore, the Court cannot rely on the accuracy of the Plaintiff’s counsel’s original or supplemental declarations regarding Defendant’s obligation remaining under the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.