Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00027223-CL-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  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  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00027223-CL-BC-CTL STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS WEST [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's unopposed motion to vacate dismissal and enforce settlement agreement against Defendant Marshall West is GRANTED in part.

'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; Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).) Here, the parties settled this case by stipulation and asked the court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the agreement. (ROA #54, Mahfouz Dec., Ex. A.) The court ordered the case dismissed without prejudice on February 23, 2023. (ROA #47.) Following dismissal, Defendant materially breached the agreement by failing to continue making monthly payments on his debt, and failing to make payment within 10 days of receiving two notices from Plaintiff's counsel regarding the breach. (ROA #54, Mahfouz Dec., ¶¶ 7-9.) 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, resume jurisdiction over the matter, and enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $9,499.56, plus interest and attorneys' fees, less the amount paid towards the balance owed. (ROA #54, Mahfouz Dec., Ex. A, ¶¶ 9-12.) Defendant paid $2,300 towards the amount before defaulting. (ROA #54, Mahfouz Dec., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff's counsel claims $2,300 in attorney's fees in his declaration, but according to the memorandum of costs, the amount is $1,300. (Compare ROA #54, Mahfouz Dec., ¶ 11, with ROA #51, item 10.) The court will give precedence to the amount stated in the memorandum of costs. Plaintiff also requests costs of $378.99; however, because costs were not contemplated in the stipulated settlement agreement, that request is denied.

Plaintiff's counsel claims interest accrued 'at the legal rate of 10%' beginning on the default date, August 1, 2023. However, the rate of interest was not specified in the settlement agreement, and the court disagrees 10% is the 'legal rate.' Instead, the court will use the rate for money judgments arising from credit card debt entered on or after January 1, 2023, which is 5 percent per annum. (Code Civ.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096116  22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE  37-2021-00027223-CL-BC-CTL Proc., § 685.010, subd. (a)(2)(B)(i).) Thus, daily interest is $1.30, and 318 will have passed from the default date to the hearing date, resulting in prejudgment interest of $413.40.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded a judgment totaling $8,912.96 (= $9,499.56 + $1,300 + $413.40 – $2,300).

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 23, 2023 dismissal is vacated, and judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $8,912.96.

Plaintiff is instructed to provide a revised proposed order and revised proposed judgment that reflects the limitations described above and the revised judgment amount.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096116  22