Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV37334, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37334    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 29, 2022 against Defendant DLF Logistics LLC (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) open book account, (3) account stated, and (4) reasonable value.

On April 30, 2023, a “Stipulation for Entry of Dismissal Pursuant to C.C.P § 664.6” was filed in this action. This Stipulation provides, inter alia, that “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between plaintiff, CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., and defendant, DLF LOGISTICS LLC (hereinafter the ‘Parties’), that the above-referenced matter has been resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED between the Parties that this action shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6, with the Court reserving its power to set aside the dismissal and ordering entry of judgment upon a showing of default in the specified terms of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment executed by the Parties concurrently herewith.”

On April 30, 2023, the Court entered an Order providing, inter alia, as follows:

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THIS MATTER IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH THE COURT RESERVING JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL AND ORDERING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UPON A SHOWING OF DEFAULT IN THE SPECIFIED TERMS OF THE STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT…”

Plaintiff now moves “for an order to set aside the dismissal,” and to enforce the settlement entered between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant filed a “non-opposition” to the motion.

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].)

In the motion, Plaintiff states that it “requests that the dismissal triggered by the Stipulation for Entry of Dismissal Pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6 filed on April 30, 2023 be set aside and judgment be entered against defendant DLF LOGISTICS LLC for the full balance of $50,880.25, less payments made by defendant pursuant to the terms of [the] stipulation in the sum of $7,200.00, for a judgment amount of $43,680.25.” (Mot. at p. 6:12-15.)

Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting declaration is the parties’ “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.” (Jun Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) The Stipulation for Entry of Judgment provides, inter alia, as follows:

“Defendant stipulates to the entry of judgment in the sum of $50,880.25 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. However, this Stipulation shall not be filed with the court and no judgment shall be entered pursuant thereto so long as the Defendant pays Plaintiff the sum of $49,680.25, in accordance with the payment schedule set forth hereinbelow, without default and failure to timely cure:

a.) The sum of $2,400.00 shall be paid on the 15th day of each month, for twenty (20) consecutive months commencing February 15, 2023, and continuing each month thereafter through September 15, 2024; and

b.) A final payment of $1,680.25 shall be paid on or before October 15, 2024.”

(Jun Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, p. 2:6-14.)

The Stipulation for Entry of Judgment further provides that “[i]n the event payment is not made within 10 days of the date written notice is sent by mail, Plaintiff may, on the eleventh (11th) day immediately following said written notice of default, declare the then entire unpaid balance immediately due and payable together with reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of said obligation if said default has not been cured. In such event, judgment shall be immediately entered in the sum of $50,880.25 together with reasonable attorney’s fees in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, less any sums received by Plaintiff from said Defendant pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation.” (Jun Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, pp. 2:23-3:1.)

The Stipulation for Entry of Judgment also provides that “IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED between the Parties that this Court retain jurisdiction over the parties hereto to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §664.6.” (Jun Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, p. 4:5-7.)

Plaintiff indicates that on May 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant’s counsel indicating, inter alia, “[p]lease be advised that your client is currently in default as to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in regard to the above-captioned matter. Your client is in arrears as to the sum of $4,800.00 representing payment due April 15, 2023 in the amount of $2,400.00 and May 15, 2023 in the amount of $2,400.00. In regard to the above, please be advised that unless the sum of $4,800.00 is received in this office within ten (10) days from the date of this letter, we will have no other alternative than to proceed with the filing of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment with the Court and request judgment be entered against your client pursuant to the terms and conditions of said Stipulation…” (Jun Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “Defendant DLF LOGISTICS LLC failed to make the payment pursuant to the attached Settlement Agreement.” (Jun Decl., ¶ 5.) As set forth above, Defendant filed a “non-opposition” to the instant motion. Defendant does not dispute that it did not make all of payments required by the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.  

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 parties’ Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, specifically, the terms providing that “[i]n the event payment is not made within 10 days of the date written notice is sent by mail, Plaintiff may, on the eleventh (11th) day immediately following said written notice of default, declare the then entire unpaid balance immediately due and payable together with reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of said obligation if said default has not been cured. In such event, judgment shall be immediately entered in the sum of $50,880.25 together with reasonable attorney’s fees in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, less any sums received by Plaintiff from said Defendant pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation.” (Jun Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, pp. 2:23-3:1.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendant made payments “pursuant to the terms of [the] stipulation in the sum of $7,200.00...” (Jun Decl., ¶ 6.) As discussed, Plaintiff requests that the Court “vacate the previous dismissal and award plaintiff the full balance of $50,880.25, less payments made by defendant pursuant to the terms of [the] stipulation in the sum of $7,200.00, for a judgment amount of $43,680.25.” (Jun Decl., ¶ 6.) This request is not opposed by Defendant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and to enforce settlement.

The dismissal in this action is ordered set aside, and judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total sum of $43,680.25.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order. 

DATED:  January 6, 2025                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court