Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV06609, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV06609, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06609 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter Judgment, filed by Plaintiff Amguard Insurance Company.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On March 27, 2023 Plaintiff Amguard Insurance Company(“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint against Defendant Victor Manuel Salazar (“Defendant”), and Does 1 through 5, for damages.

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written stipulation for the entry of judgment, which would be discharged upon the payment of $37,906.90. (Benson Decl., ¶ 4.) Pursuant to that agreement, the case was dismissed, but the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 in the event of breach.

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) In ruling on a motion to enter judgment, the court acts as a trier of fact. The court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. To do so, the court may receive oral testimony in addition to declarations. (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.)

“[W]here the plaintiff has filed a voluntary dismissal of an action …, the court is without jurisdiction to act further …, and any subsequent orders of the court are simply void.” (Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Auth. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89, (internal quotes omitted).) The result is different where a signed, written settlement agreement (or oral settlement before the court) states the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because that agreement could be enforced under C.C.P. § 664.6. (See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439-440; Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 310, 326—court had continuing jurisdiction to consider attorney fees and costs motions after dismissal where settlement agreement provided court retained jurisdiction to enforce agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6.))

C.C.P. § 664.6(a) states: “If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement.” Counsel may sign the request on behalf of their clients (C.C.P. § 664.6(b)(2) (added eff. 1/1/21)). The request should be made while the court still has jurisdiction. (Wackeen v. Malis, supra, 97 CA4th at 433; see Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 962.)

Discussion

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written stipulation for the entry of judgment, which would be discharged upon the payment of $37,906.90. (Benson Decl., ¶ 4.) This agreement has been attached as Exhibit 1. Defendant was to pay $100.00 a month after his insurance carrier paid $10,000.00 toward the settlement amount. (Id.) Defendant failed to make any payments. (Id., ¶ 5.)

The Stipulation Agreement appears to have been executed, with signatures from the two parties. (Exhibit 1.) As such, there is a valid agreement.

On June 20, 2023, the stipulation was filed with the Court to allow the Court jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation. (Exhibit 1, ¶ 1.) The Order for Dismissal and Court Retaining Jurisdiction was signed on June 20, 2023. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce this Stipulation Agreement.

Plaintiff contends Defendant failed to make any payments and that the balance due is $27,906.90. (Beson Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also requests filing costs of $72.00. (Id., 2:8-11.) Plaintiff requests a total judgment entered of $27,978.90. (Id.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has established that there was a valid agreement between the parties, that the Court retains jurisdiction, and that there is a need to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to set aside the dismissal. Judgment is entered against Defendant for $27,978.90.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.