Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC05206, Date: 2024-04-11 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.

Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Kayla Isaac

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s unopposed motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. Judgment is entered against Defendant Kayla Isaac in the sum amount of $8,314.95 pursuant to paragraph 1, 4, and 5 of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Installment Payments as follows: $5,667.62 unpaid principal; $2,422.33 interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid principal; $225.00 costs for filing and service of process.

ANALYSIS:

On August 8, 2022, Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint against Kayla Isaac (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10, asserting a single cause of action for subrogation.

On June 20, 2022, this case settled. The parties entered into a settlement pursuant to a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Installment Payments (the "Stipulation" ). The Stipulation calls for the Court to retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6. (Declaration of Brian P. Tapper (“Tapper Decl.) ¶ 2; Ex. “A.”)

The Stipulation calls for Defendant to make monthly payments to Plaintiff, commencing on August 25, 2022. The settlement was in the sum amount of $ 7,067.00. Up to that time, Defendant had made S1,400.00 in payments. Defendant has defaulted on the terms of payment as set forth in the Stipulation by reason of Defendant’s failure to make monthly payments due on or after June 25, 2023. The interest begins on October 21, 2019, which is stated in the Stipulation. (Id. ¶ 3.)

On February 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed its instant motion to enforce settlement agreement and enter judgment against Defendant on the grounds that Defendant has failed to adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement. No opposition has been filed to Plaintiff’s motion.

Enforcement of settlement agreements is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. This statute provides, in relevant part: If the 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).) Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)

Here, Plaintiff moves for an order to enforce the settlement against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. It is not disputed (a) that Plaintiff and Defendant signed a written settlement agreement in August and September 2022, respectively; and (b) that Defendant had made S1,400.00 in payments before defaulting on the terms of payment. (Tapper Decl., ¶¶ 2-3; Ex. “A.”) Also, the Court retained jurisdiction in this case to enforce settlement pursuant to section 664.6 since such was requested when the case was dismissed. (Id. ¶ 2.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing the settlement agreement with Defendant.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. Judgment is entered against Defendant in the sum amount of $8,314.95 pursuant to paragraph 1, 4, and 5 of the Stipulation as follows: $5,667.62 unpaid principal; $2,422.33 interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid principal; $225.00 costs for filing and service of process.