SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

  

I. Background 

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Alma Lorena Oseguera and Juan Catalan for a subrogation claim arising from a motor vehicle incident, wherein Plaintiff paid for damages of its insured. On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Juan Catalan.  

On October 1, 2020, the Court dismissed the action pursuant to the stipulation for conditional settlement and entry of judgment between Plaintiff and Defendant Alma Lorena Oseguera (“Defendant”). The Court retained jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 664.6. 

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside dismissal. Plaintiff seeks a court order setting aside dismissal pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 664.6 on the grounds that Defendant breached the terms of their written stipulation for entry of judgment. No opposition was filed.  

 

II. Legal Standard 

Code Civ. Proc., section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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., section 664.6.) 

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’”  (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917 [quoting In re Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 967) (alteration in original).)  “‘If requested by the parties,’ however, ‘the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.’”  (Id. (quoting CCP section 664.6) (emphasis in original).)  “‘Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.’”  (Id. (quoting Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37).) 

“A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’”  (Id. (quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440).)  “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’”  (Id. (quoting Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at 440).) 

 

III. Discussion 

Plaintiff moves to set aside dismissal on the grounds that Defendant breached the terms of their stipulation for entry of judgment. The order for dismissal states that the Court retains jurisdiction of the case under Code Civ. Proc., section 664.6. 

The parties’ stipulation reads in pertinent part: 

“IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that defendant, Alma Lorena Oseguera will pay to plaintiff the following sums: 

A down payment of $250.00 due by November 25, 2019; 

The remaining sum of $9,750.00 payable at the rate of $75.00 per month commencing on December 25, 2019, and continuing on the 25th of each month thereafter until paid in full. If defendant defaults on payments the entire amount of claim $33,754.26 will be due and payable. 

All payments pursuant to this stipulation are to be made by check made payable to "Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club" and addressed to the Law Offices of Richardson, Fair & Cohen at 2601 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007. 

… 

If defendant, Alma Lorena Oseguera, defaults or fails to perform any of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, and if a payment has not been made to Plaintiff within fifteen (15) days of the due date, then Plaintiff will be entitled to file this Stipulation for Judgment for the amount of $33,754.26, principal, costs, plus interest at the legal rate from the date of default to date of entry of Judgment, as hereinabove stated, less the total amount of all payments received on account by Plaintiff subsequent to execution of this Stipulation, pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation. 

In addition, Plaintiff may upon entry of the Judgment, without further notice, immediately commence the levy of execution of said Judgment for the full amount entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, less any sums received by Plaintiff as payments from Defendant pursuant to this Stipulation and subsequent to execution of this Stipulation, plus interest accruing from the date of entry of said Judgment, plus any additional Court costs hereafter incurred by Plaintiff.” 

(Mot., Exh. A.) (emphasis original.) 

 

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that after the parties signed the stipulation, Defendant made payments in the total sum of $1,905. (McClain Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel further declares that Defendant is more is more than 15 days delinquent with respect to all payments which were due on or after August 25, 2022 (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff now requests that the Court enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for a total principal of $32,284.26, which is the principal $33,754.26 less the $1,905 paid. (Id. at ¶5.) Plaintiff also requests the additional sum of $450 for additional costs incurred for Plaintiff’s first appearance fee with filing the Stipulation. 

The Court notes that the stipulated total $33,754.26 less the $1,905 paid is $31,849.26, not $32,284.26 as calculated by Plaintiff. 

Because Defendant breached the terms of the stipulation, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court will set aside dismissal and enter judgment in the amount of $31,849.26 plus $450, in the total amount of $32,299.26, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.  

 

III. Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.