Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: BC721593, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.


Case Number: BC721593    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 19

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4’s unopposed Motion to Set Aside CCP 664.6 Dismissal, And Enter Judgment Against Defendant is GRANTED in part.

 

The Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Rita A Reedy $52,929.38.

 

The Court signs the proposed judgment filed on October 18, 2023 after revising Section 6(a)(4) to indicate $502.50 and Section 6(a)(6) to indicate $52,929.38.

 

Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

 

This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4 (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants Rita A Reedy and Somjai R Reedy (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following cause of action:

1.     Breach of Contract.

 

On March 18, 2019, Defendant Somjai R Reedy was dismissed.

 

On March 29, 2019, pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Rita A Reedy, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

 

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside CCP 664.6 Dismissal, And Enter Judgment Against Defendant (the “Motion”).

 

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, Plaintiff moves to enforce the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (the “Stipulation”) on the ground that Defendant Rita A Reedy defaulted under the terms of the agreement.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

 

(a) If 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.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.

(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6(a), (b).)

 

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) 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.)

 

The term “parties” as used in section 664.6 “means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.” (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586.) “Requiring the litigants themselves to stipulate to a settlement agreement ‘impress[es] upon them the seriousness and finality of the decision to settle, and minimizes the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the settlement.’” (Johnson v. Department of Corrections (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1700, 1708 (quoting Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 585).)

 

“The power of the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, however, is extremely limited. Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Hernandez v. Board of Educ. of Stockton Unified School Dist. (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1176.) “The court is powerless to impose on the parties more restrictive or less restrictive or different terms than those contained in their settlement agreement.” (Id.). 

 

The Stipulation provides that Defendant Rita A Reedy agrees that $60,524.38 is owed to Plaintiff due to the breach of the alleged contract, which includes $502.50 in costs. (Stipulation, §§ 1, 5.) However, the Stipulation provides that, if Defendant Rita A Reedy makes the required $245.00 monthly payments when due, she will be entitled to a discount of $32,594.38 beginning August 5, 2028. (Id. at § 6.)

 

However, the Stipulation provides that, if Defendant Rita A Reedy defaults on the repayment agreement, she forfeits the discount, will owe the full $60,524.38, and that Plaintiff shall be entitled to set aside the dismissal of the action and obtain a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Rita A Reedy for the full $60,524.38 minus any amount paid by Defendant Rita A Reedy. (Id. at § 10.)

 

After consideration of the declaration of Stephanie Boone, the Court finds that Defendant Rita A Reedy defaulted on the terms of the Stipulation and has paid $7,595.00 (Stephanie Boone Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.)

 

As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant Rita A Reedy for $52,929.38. (Court's calculations: $60,524.38 - $7,595.00 (credit) = $52,929.28. The Stipulation provides for full resolution of the case. 

 

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs on October 18, 2023 that seeks an additional $60.00 in costs above the $502.50 agreed to in the Stipulation. Yet, the Stipulation does not provide for Plaintiff’s recovery of any additional costs, including the cost for the filing fee in bringing a motion to enforce the Stipulation. Thus, the Court does not award any additional costs. (See Hernandez, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at 176.)

 

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED in part and the Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Rita A Reedy $52,929.38.