Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2019-00047143-CL-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00047143-CL-PA-CTL STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS PINON[IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's unopposed motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant David Pinon is GRANTED.

'Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. . . . The court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the statute even after a dismissal, but only if the parties requested such a retention of jurisdiction before the dismissal. Such a request must be made either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court. . . . If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.' (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) Here, the parties settled this case by stipulation (ROA #95) and the court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice while retaining jurisdiction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (ROA #96.) Defendant materially breached the agreement by failing to make any monthly payments on his debt after the initial payment was made by his insurance carrier, and failing to make payment within 14 days of receiving a letter from Plaintiff regarding the breach. (ROA #102, Reese Dec., ¶¶ 4-6; ROA #95, ¶ 3.) The parties agreed and stipulated that after such breach and upon declaration of Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel regarding such default, the court would set aside the dismissal without prejudice, resume jurisdiction over the matter, and enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $9,792.10 (the settlement amount), less the amount paid by Defendant or his insurer towards the balance owed ($3,792.10), plus court costs not to exceed $500. (ROA #102, Reese Dec., ¶¶ 7-8; ROA #95, ¶ 3.) Although Plaintiff requests $509.50 in costs, the settlement agreement limits costs to $500; consequently, the total amount Plaintiff may seek is $6,500.00.

The parties entered into an enforceable settlement and stipulated for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce it. Based on Defendant's default, the motion is granted, the February 6, 2023 dismissal is vacated, and judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $6,500.00.

Plaintiff is instructed to provide a revised proposed order for the court's signature that reflects the limit on costs set forth in the settlement agreement.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3016994  21