Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case BC457204 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC457204, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC457204 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 74

BC457204 STATE FARM vs JOSE ARMANDO PEREZ

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. The Court shall vacate the dismissal and enter the judgment prepared by Plaintiff.

Background

On March 16, 2011, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a complaint for subrogation recovery against Defendant Jose Armando Perez based upon an automobile collision involving Defendant and Plaintiff’s insureds.

On May 29, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation for settlement and order and the Court entered the parties’ “Order Regarding for Settlement.”

Motion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company moves the Court for entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation due to Defendant’s failure to meet his payment obligations.

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

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.)

Discussion

On May 29, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation for Settlement and Order providing that the parties agreed to a settlement of $25,000.00 provided Defendant made 600 monthly payments of $25.00. If Defendant failed to make a payment he would be deemed in default, Plaintiff would provide written notice of the default, and Defendant would be required to correct the default within 10 days. If Defendant failed to correct the default, the parties agreed to the entry of a judgment “in the amount of $48,437.01, plus interest on that amount, at the legal rate, from May 1, 2012, plus the costs of attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in enforcing this Stipulation, less any payments that have been made by Defendant to Plaintiff, as of that date.” (Mahfouz Decl. Ex. A ¶ 6.) The stipulation also provided “[i]f the court dismisses this matter, then the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this stipulation pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6.” (Id. ¶ 7.) The stipulation is signed by both parties and constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement, and the Court accepted the parties’ written agreement to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

In its corresponding May 29, 2012 order, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The order also provided “[i]n the event that payments are not received as set forth above, Plaintiff, with notice to the defendant, will consider this agreement to become null and void, and will demand payment of the full Judgment amount in the sum of $48,437.01, less any and all payments which have been received and applied to the Judgment.” (Id. Ex. A.) The Court finds the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 are met.

Plaintiff only received $1,800.00 from Defendant and issued past due notices on September 2, 2021, September 21, 2021, and October 7, 2021. (Mahfouz Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.) Defendant failed to remedy the default. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation in the amount of $42,102.14, which “is comprised of the principal settlement amount of $48,437.01, plus interest of $3,099.52, which accrued at the legal rate of 7% per annum since the default date of 8/01/2021, plus costs of $522.50, plus attorney’s fees of $1,843.11, less payments received by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier.” (Mahfouz Decl. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated Defendant is in default of his obligations under the parties’ settlement agreement and Plaintiff is entitled to the judgment sought.