Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 19STCV00405, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.

IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.  Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business.  http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx
    
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.


 


 

Case Number: 19STCV00405    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 74

19STCV00405           BANK OF AMERICA NA vs MARTIN LIMA PERRY

Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff Bank of America, NA filed this action against Defendant Martin Perry arising out of Defendant’s alleged failure to make payments on a charge account.

On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. On April 24, 2019, the Court set an OSC re: Dismissal Following Settlement for March 6, 2023.  

Motion

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Bank of America filed its motion to enforce its settlement with Defendant and enter judgment in the amount of $22,102.11.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.”

“A motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Red & White Distribution, LLC v. Osteroid Enterprises, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 582, 586.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, the Court “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.”  (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) “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.)  “The statutory language makes it clear, however, that a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute.” (Id. at 1185.) “Section 664.6's express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement.” (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566.)

Plaintiff Failed to Meet its Burden

Plaintiff’s motion is supported by the declaration of Gloria Zarco. However, Zarco attached evidence related to a different case to the declaration. The attached stipulation for entry of judgment contains the case caption for Barclays Bank Delaware v. Israel Jaimes Labra, Marin County Superior Court Case CIV1902227. (Zarco Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Exhibit 2 purports to be the Debtor File Balance Report for the file name “Barclays Bank Delaware vs. Israel Jaimes Labra.” (Zarco Decl. Ex. 2.)

By failing to attach an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant in this case, Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the existence of valid, binding settlement agreement between the parties. (Hines, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1182 (“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.”).)

The motion is DENIED without prejudice.