Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: LAM17K02862, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM17K02862, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM17K02862 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 26

State Farm Mutual Automobile v. David Ayon, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT

(CCP §§ 664.6 and 1032)

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants David Ayon (“Ayon”) and Oscar Uriarte (“Uriarte”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on March 6, 2017. On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a copy of its settlement agreement with Ayon with a request for dismissal and retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. The Court granted the request for dismissal with retention of jurisdiction on August 31, 2018. (Stip and Order for Settlement, 08/31/18.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Enter Judgment on January 30, 2024. 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. (Mahfouz Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.)

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. (Mahfouz Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) 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 Ayon would pay Plaintiff $9,260.49 by way of a $4,260.49 payment from insurance, followed by monthly payments starting on August 15, 2018. (Mahfouz Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The settlement agreement also provides that if Ayon defaults, judgment in the amount of $14,977.16, plus costs, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees, less monies paid, may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at Ex. A, ¶ 6, 8.) Ayon made total payments in the amount of $2,400.00 and thereafter defaulted. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an order entering judgment against Ayon based on the settlement amount of $14,997.16 plus costs of $507.95, interest of $820.82, attorney’s fees of $839.31, less payments of $6,660.49 ($4,260.49 + $2,400.00) for a total of $10,504.75. (Id. at ¶8.) However, the settlement agreement provides for judgment in the amount of $14,977.16. As such, the Court will impose judgment against Ayon based on the settlement amount of $14,977.16 plus costs of $507.95, interest of $820.82, attorney’s fees of $839.31, less payments of $6,660.49 ($4,260.49 + $2,400.00) for a total of $10,484.75.

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Enter Judgment is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,484.75.

Moving party to give notice.