Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 20STLC05089, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC05089, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC05089 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: 26

Mercury Ins. Co. v. Alcantar, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS DANNY ALCANTAR AND PATRICIA ALCANTAR IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,339.61 PRINCIPAL, $435.00 IN COSTS, AND $875.00 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES.

ANALYSIS:

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action against Defendants Danny Alcantar and Patricia Alcantar (“Defendants”). On November 23, 2020, 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 11/23/20.)

On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment. The motion was set for hearing on November 28, 20232 and continued to December 13, 2023 with notice given by Plainitff. (Minute Order, 12/13/23.) To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

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, Thai 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, Thai Decl., Exh. 1.)

The settlement obligates Defendants to pay Plaintiff $21,154.00 in weekly payments starting on September 8, 2020. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Defendants default, Plaintiff may seek judgment in the settlement amount, plus costs of $225.00 for filing and $150.00 for service, fees and costs related to execution of the judgment, less any monies paid. (Ibid.) Total payments of $2,125.00 were made towards the settlement, after which Defendants defaulted. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. 2.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendants in the amount of $19,029.61 principal ($21,154.61 - $2,125.00), $435.00 in costs, and $875.00 in attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶6.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS DANNY ALCANTAR AND PATRICIA ALCANTAR IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,029.61 PRINCIPAL, $435.00 IN COSTS, AND $875.00 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES.

Moving party to give notice.