This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2016 at 00:22:37 (UTC).

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE VS FLOWERS, TAYLOR JADE

Case Summary

On 09/08/2014 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FLOWERS, TAYLOR JADE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1771

  • Filing Date:

    09/08/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE

Defendants

FLOWERS TAYLOR JADE

WINSTON REGINA K

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RICHARDSON, FAIR & COHEN

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2016
  • HEARING DELETED - OFF CALENDAR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HELD, MINUTE ORDER FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2016
  • ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY COURT'S MOTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2016
  • ORDER OF DISMISSAL JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • PRE-TRIAL MINUTES-CONTD TO 06/07/16 AT 08:30 A M IN DEPT. 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2014
  • NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2014
  • ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2014
  • ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2014
  • NON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 03/08/16, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2014
  • OSC SET 09/08/17, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER * * DELETED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • COMPLAINT FILED - OTHER TORT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • SUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 14K11771    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 94

Interinsurance Exchange v. Winston, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Taylor Jade Flowers (“Defendant Flowers”) and Regina K. Winston (“Defendant Winston”) on September 8, 2014. On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement of Entire Case. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed the parties’ Stipulation for Conditional Settlement. The Stipulation, however, is only between Plaintiff and Defendant Winston. The case came for trial on June 7, 2016, at which time the Court dismissed the action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to appear.

On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enforce Settlement. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6:

If 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. 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.) Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Accordingly, “parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys.  (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)

Furthermore,

[R]equests for retention of jurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the settlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court or in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys, spouses or other such agents. If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party brings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but cannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets all of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a separate lawsuit.

(Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has not demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements set forth above. The Notice of Settlement filed on April 27, 2016 did not include a request to the Court to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 that the Court granted. Simply filing the stipulation with the Court is not sufficient. (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918 (holding “In this case, the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed.”) (emphasis added))

Without a request for retention of jurisdiction made to, and granted by, the Court made prior to dismissal of the action, the Court cannot entertain the instant Motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. It is apparent that the Court’s dismissal of this action was not pursuant to section 664.6, as it specifically states the dismissal was under section 581. Nor can the Court vacate the dismissal as no authority has been presented for such an order.

Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice.