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 Defendants Melissa Rodriguez and Sintia Maldonado (“Defendants”) for a subrogation claim arising from a motor vehicle incident, wherein Plaintiff paid for damages on behalf of its insured.  

On October 8, 2019, the Court dismissed the action pursuant to the stipulation for conditional settlement and entry of judgment between Plaintiff and Defendants. The Court retained jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 664.6. 

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment against Defendants pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 664.6 on the grounds that Defendants breached the terms of the written stipulation for entry of judgment. The motion is unopposed.  

 

II. Discussion 

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).) 

Plaintiff moves to set aside dismissal on the grounds that Defendants breached the terms of the 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: 

 

“That Judgment may be, entered in the above-entitled case in favor of plaintiff, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE and against Defendants, Melissa Rodriguez and Sintia Maldonado, for the principal sum of $42,266.38. 

… 

“IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that defendants, Melissa Rodriguez and Sintia Maldonado will pay to plaintiff the following sums: 

 

The remaining sum of $25,360.00 payable at the rate of $200.00 per month commencing on 11/02/2019, and continuing on the 2nd day of each month thereafter until paid in full. If defendant defaults on payments the entire amount of claim $42,266.38 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 defendants, Melissa Rodriguez and Sintia Maldonado, default or fail 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 $42,266.38, 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 Defendants, less any sums received by Plaintiff as payments from Defendants 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, Defendants made installment payments in the total sum of $2,650. (McClain Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s avers Defendants are more than 15 days delinquent with respect to all payments which were due on or after February 2, 2022 (Ibid.) Plaintiff now requests that the Court enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for a total principal of $39,616.38, which represents the principal $42,266.38 less the $2,650 paid. (Id. at ¶5.) Plaintiff also requests the additional sum of $870 for costs. 

Because Defendants breached the terms of the stipulation, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court will set aside dismissal and enter judgment in the amount of $39,616.38 plus costs of $870, in the total amount of $40,486.38, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants.