Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV30157, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30157    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE 

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default is GRANTED.

Background 

On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Karen Martinez (“Defendant”) alleging one cause of action for subrogation arising from an insurance policy Defendant had with Plaintiff totaling $25,349.50.

On October 13, 2020, Defendant Karen Martinez filed an Answer.

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.

On April 29, 2022, the Court granted the Order for Dismissal with Reservation to Vacate and Enter Judgment Upon Breach.

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the current Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal. As of November 17, 2023, no Opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard 

CCP § 664.6, provides a summary procedure that enables judges to enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement.  In particular, the statute provides: 

(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. 

CCP¿§ 664.6(a)-(b) (emphasis added). 

 Discussion 

 Plaintiff moves to have the Court vacate the dismissal that was entered on April 29, 2022, as Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has breached the parties’ settlement agreement.

A.      Retention of Jurisdiction 

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’  (Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 867) [12 Cal.Rptr.3d 142.) ‘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.’ (§ 664.6, italics added.)”  (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.)  “‘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.’”  (Ibid. (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.’”  (Ibid. (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.’” (Ibid. (quoting Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at 440).)

Here, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal. (Dec. Reese, Ex. A.) Included in the stipulation was an agreement that the Court
“shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6 to enforce this agreement.” (Dec. Reese, Ex. A, ¶ 3.) On April 29, 2022, this Court dismissed the matter without prejudice, and specifically stated that the Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (Order for Dismissal, entered § 4/29/2022)

As the Stipulation complies with § 664.6 requirements, the Court has retained jurisdiction to enter judgment pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation in this action.  

B. Entry of Judgment 

The Settlement agreement provided indicates that the total settlement amount was $10,000. As a part of the settlement agreement, Defendant was to pay an initial $5,000, and $100 per month until the settlement amount was paid in full. (Dec. Reese, Ex. A. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff moves to have the court set aside the dismissal entered on April 29, 2022, as Defendant has breached the agreement and failed to make payments. (Motion 2: 15-18.) As evidenced by the letter sent from Harlan Reese, Defendant failed to send in a the regularly scheduled monthly payment. (Dec. Reese, Ex. C.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks $4,960.00, which is the $10,000 less the initial $5,000 payment, the first $100.00 monthly payment, and the filing fee of $60.00. (Dec. Reese ¶ 8.)

Here, the Court finds that the Stipulation is valid and enforceable under CCP § 664.6. Moreover, Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant has failed to make payments per the parties agreement. Based on the Order signed by this Court on April 29, 2022, the Court has jurisdiction to set aside dismissal in the even that a party breaches the agreement.

              Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default is GRANTED.

Conclusion 

              Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default is GRANTED.

              Judgment is to be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $4,960 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6

Moving party is ordered to give notice and to submit a proposed Judgment.