Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC03209, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC03209    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL, ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT [CCP § 664.6]

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         None

ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

SERVICE: 

[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 entering judgment against Defendant pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 30, 2023.

REPLY: None filed as of March 30, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,382.29 and $60.00 IN COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Fernando Jose Castro Ayala (“Defendant”) on April 9, 2020. On April 21, 2021, 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 May 3, 2021. (Stip and Order for Dismissal, 04/21/21.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment on January 10, 2023. 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, 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 counsel. (Motion, Benson Decl., Exh. 1, p. 4.)

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, 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 $6,983.23 by way of a $4,483.23 payment from insurance, followed by monthly payments starting on April 1, 2021. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendant defaults, judgment in the demand of the Complaint ($8,615.52), plus costs and prejudgment interest, less monies paid, may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶1, 5.) Defendant made total payments in the amount of $5,233.23 and thereafter defaulted. (Id. at ¶¶5-6.) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an order entering judgment against Defendant based on the settlement amount of $3,382.29 ($8,615.52 - $5,233.23) plus costs of $60.00, for a total of $3,442.29. (Id. at ¶8.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,382.29 and $60.00 IN COSTS.

Moving party to give notice.