Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: KC057989, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC057989    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, April 4, 2023

RE:                                          STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE VS RIGOBERTO VEGA AVILA (KC057989)

________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT

Responding Party: Unopposed (as of Thurs. 3-23 at 10:30 AM, due 3-21)

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT is TBD because the Motion does not provide the terms of the agreement, but likely to be granted during the hearing upon presentation of the required details. 

Background

This is a subrogation case.

On February 18, 2010, the action was filed.

On December 29, 2010, a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case was filed.

On March 4, 2021, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (“Motion”) because of concerns with improper service of notice of the motion on Defense Counsel.

On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff refiled the Motion.

On December 5, 2022, the court granted Defense Counsel Jimmy Y. Park’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

On December 6, 2022, the court continued the hearing on the Motion because Defendant Rigoberto Vega Avila no longer had counsel, as such Plaintiff is currently pro per.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure §664.6(a) provides that, "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, . . . the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement."

Discussion

Plaintiff explains that the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal (hereinafter "Agreement") in which Defendant agreed to make monthly payments to settle this matter. Defendant made monthly payments pursuant to the stipulation in the amount of $5,500.00, however Defendant has since defaulted on payments.

Here, though it appears Defendant has indeed defaulted on payments, the court cannot rule on the matter because it is unaware of the “terms of the settlement” because no Agreement is attached. Or, in the alternative, the motion does not set forth the amount the stipulated amount, credits made, and the total judgment sought.

Therefore, though Defendant has defaulted on payments, the court seeks information on the terms before it grants the motion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is TBD, but likely granted during the hearing.