Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV41820, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41820    Hearing Date: October 25, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Subrogation Recovery in this action on November 2, 2020 against Defendants Uriel Julian Barraza and Emilio Barraza.  

Plaintiff indicates that Uriel Julian Barraza and Plaintiff entered into a Stipulation for Settlement and Order in this matter. (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A.) On April 6, 2021, a “Proposed Order Regarding Settlement” was filed in this matter providing, inter alia, that “[t]his matter is HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety. However, the Court shall retain Jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation for Settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6…” The Order was signed on April 6, 2021.

Plaintiff now moves for the Court “to enforce the Stipulation for Settlement entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant Uriel Julian Barraza…and enter judgment against [Uriel Julian Barraza] in the amount of $22,774.62.” The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)

“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.” ((Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810 [internal citations omitted, emphasis in original].)

As set forth above, Plaintiff indicates that Uriel Julian Barraza and Plaintiff entered into a Stipulation for Settlement and Order in this matter (herein, the “Stipulation for Settlement”). (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The Stipulation for Settlement provides, inter alia, as follows:

“…it is hereby agreed and stipulated that the above captioned matter is settled in the amount of $18,000.00 as follows:

A) Insurance carrier of Defendant, Alliance United Insurance Company, shall pay the balance of the policy limit available to Defendant under the policy of insurance issued by

Alliance United Insurance Company in the amount of $10,000.00.

B) The balance of $8,000.00 shall be paid by Defendant in the following manner:

(1) $100.00 shall be paid upon the signing of this agreement, and no later than March 1, 2021.

(2) Defendant shall thereafter make payments of $100.00 with each payment being due, consecutively, on the first day of each month thereafter until the balance of $8,000.00 is paid in full.

(3) If all payments are made as set forth above, then the payments will be interest free.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A, ¶ 4.)

            The Stipulation for Settlement further provides that “[s]hould Defendant fail to make the payment, as agreed, on the first of each month, he will be deemed to be in default of this agreement…Should Defendant be in default, the attorney for Plaintiff will provide Defendant with written notice of the default and Defendant will have 10 days within which to remedy the default. If Defendant does not remedy, the attorney for Plaintiff may, by ex parte motion, submit an order to the court for entry of judgment against Defendant without further notice. Judgment shall be entered in the amount of $28,745.89, plus interest on that amount, at the legal rate, from March 1, 2021, plus all costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as any additional costs incurred in the enforcement of this agreement, less any payments that have been made by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier to Plaintiff, as of that date.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A, ¶¶ 6-7.) The Stipulation for Settlement also provides that “[i]f the court dismisses this matter, then the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this stipulation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A, ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n or about 3/01/2021, Defendant’s insurance carrier, Alliance United Insurance Company, made a payment in the amount of $10,000.00 to Plaintiff.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel further states that “[t]o date, Plaintiff has only received $1,200.00 from Defendant. As such, Defendant is deemed to be in default of the Settlement Agreement. My office provided written notice of the default to Defendant by sending Past Due Notices on 7/29/2022, and 11/02/2022.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel states, that “[t]o date, Defendant has failed to remedy the default. There is an outstanding balance that remains unpaid to Plaintiff by Defendant pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 10.)

As discussed, Plaintiff requests that the Court enforce the Stipulation for Settlement and enter judgment against Uriel Julian Barraza in the amount of $22,774.62. Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he requested Judgment of $22,774.62 is comprised of the principal settlement amount of $28,745.89, plus interest of $3,383.14, which accrued at the legal rate of 7% per annum since the default date of 6/1/2022, plus costs of $593.22, plus attorney’s fees of $1,252.37, less payments received by Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier of $11,200.00.” (Mahfouz II Decl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also asserts in the motion that “[t]otal interest owing on the principal balance is $3,383.14 as of 2/05/2024 (date motion prepared). As of that date, interest has accrued in the amount of $5.51 for 614 days, from the default date of 6/01/2022 to 2/05/2024 the date this motion was prepared.” (Mot. at p. 5:21-23.)

As discussed, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated grounds for the Court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation for Settlement entered into between Plaintiff and Uriel Julian Barraza.

Uriel Julian Barraza does not oppose the instant motion, and thus does not provide any evidence that he has remedied the default. Uriel Julian Barraza does not oppose Plaintiff’s request to enforce the parties’ Stipulation for Settlement.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Stipulation for Settlement. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Uriel Julian Barraza in the total amount of $22,774.62.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order. 

DATED:  October 25, 2024                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court