Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STCV18089, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18089    Hearing Date: November 15, 2023    Dept: 26

Nussbaum, APC v. Bennett, et al.

ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nussbaum APC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MARY E. BENNETT IN THE AMOUNT OF $ $11,507.78 PRINCIPAL AND TEN (10) PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM FROM APRIL 9, 2021 UNTIL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

ANALYSIS:

On May 13, 2021, Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Mary E. Bennett (“Defendant”). On the trial date of May 3, 2023, both parties appeared and represented that the case had been settled. (Minute Order, 05/03/23.) The terms were read into the record as follows: “Defendant has 30 days to pay $5,753.89 if not they will have to pay the full amount; each party shall pay its own costs and fees; and once the payment is complete the case will be dismissed.” (Ibid.)

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment. Defendant filed an opposition on November 1, 2023.

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” with respect to a signed writing include “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 made in open court with both parties present. (Motion, Carroll Decl., ¶2.) Specifically, Plaintiff’s attorney was present in the courtroom with Defendant while Plaintiff and defense counsel appeared via LA CourtConnect. (Ibid.) The parties, each individually, acknowledged the settlement terms that were reached. (Id. at ¶4.) In opposition, Defendant disputes that Plaintiff was present in Court and in support of this, points to the Court’s minute order dated May 3, 2023. Yet the opposition admits that the minute order does not accurately reflect the appearances because it only indicates that the parties’ attorneys were present, despite the fact that Defendant herself was in court that day. (Opp., p. 2:12-15.) The Court finds that both parties themselves appeared in court and acknowledged the settlement terms, such that the settlement agreement is enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

To date, Defendant has not made any payment towards the settlement agreement. (Motion, Wilcox Decl., ¶2.) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the full amount of $11,507.78 plus ten percent interest from April 9, 2021 until entry of judgment. (Motion, Carroll Decl., ¶3.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Nussbaum APC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MARY E. BENNETT IN THE AMOUNT OF $ $11,507.78 PRINCIPAL AND TEN (10) PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM FROM APRIL 9, 2021 UNTIL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

Moving party to give notice.