Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV45748, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV45748    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company       

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Enter Judgment

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Justo Luque (“Defendant”) on December 19, 2019 for subrogation recovery.

On December 10, 2020, the parties filed a “Stipulation for Settlement and Order,” in which the parties settled this action for the amount of $18,500.  (Dec. 10, 2020 Stip., ¶ 4.)  On December 11, 2020, the court (1) entered an order on the settlement, and (2) dismissed this action, without prejudice, while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation for Settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (Dec. 11, 2020 Order, pp. 4:26-5:5.)

Plaintiff now moves the court for an order vacating the dismissal of this action and entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $18,537.70, consisting of (1) the stipulated amount of $26,022.54, less $10,850 paid, (2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,601.79, (3) attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,170.67, and (4) costs in the amount of $592.70.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in relevant part, the following:¿ “If 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.”¿ This statute “provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”¿ (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)¿ “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.”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

Plaintiff has submitted a copy of the Stipulation for Settlement, executed by Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand.  (Mahfouz Decl., Ex. A, Stipulation.)  Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties agreed to settle this action for $18,500, which would be paid to Plaintiff (1) by Defendant’s insurance provider, in the amount of $10,000, and (2) by Defendant, in the remaining amount of $8,500.  ( Mahfouz Decl., Ex. A, Stipulation, ¶ 4; Dec. 11, 2020 Order, ¶¶ 1-2.)  The parties further agreed, and the court ordered, that, in the event of Defendant’s default, “[j]udgment shall be entered in the amount of $26,022.54, plus interest on that amount, at the legal rate, from December 1, 2020, plus all costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as any additional costs incurred in the enforcement of th[e] agreement, less any payments that have been made by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier to Plaintiff, as of that date.”  (Mahfouz Decl., Ex. A, Stipulation, ¶ 7; Dec. 11, 2020 Order, pp. 4:26-5:2.)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has presented evidence establishing that it and Defendant stipulated, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court, for the settlement of this case.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a); Mahfouz Decl., Ex. A, Stipulation.)  The court also finds that Plaintiff has presented evidence establishing that Defendant has defaulted under the terms of the parties’ agreement by failing to make all required payments to Plaintiff.  (Mahfouz Decl., ¶¶ 9 [“To date, Plaintiff has only received $850.00 from Defendant”], 10.)  Defendant has not filed opposition papers or other evidence with the court disputing that he is in default.

The court therefore (1) vacates the court’s December 11, 2020 dismissal of this action, and (2) finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order entering judgment in its favor and against Defendant pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation and in the amounts requested in its motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿664.6, subd. (a); Mahfouz Decl., Ex. A, Stipulation, ¶ 7; Mahfouz Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; Mot., p. 6:13-16 [asserting that Plaintiff incurred costs in the amount of $592.70, consisting of $457.70 in filing fees, $75 in service of process fees, and a $60 motion filing fee], 6:21-28 [requesting attorney’s fees in accordance with Local Rule 3.214].)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s motion to vacate the dismissal, enforce settlement agreement, and enter judgment.

            The court orders that the court’s December 11, 2020 order dismissing this action without prejudice is set aside.

The court orders that judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and against defendant Justo Luque in the total amount of $18,537.70, consisting of (1) the stipulated amount of $26,022.54, less the $10,850 paid,          (2) prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,601.79, (3) attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,170.67, and (4) costs in the amount of $592.70.

            The court will sign and file the proposed Judgment (made on Judicial Council form JUD-100) lodged by plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on December 22, 2023.

The court orders plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to give notice of this ruling and entry of judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 8, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court