On 02/23/2017 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against COREAS, STEVE. 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.
Disposed - Other Disposed
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF
LAW OFF OF TODD F HAINES
WILLIAMS-ABREGO HARTSUYKER STRATMAN
7/18/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
7/18/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
7/18/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
7/23/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE
2/23/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
2/23/2017: Summons - Summons
2/23/2017: Complaint - Complaint Insurance Coverage
3/14/2017: (name extension) - PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED
4/26/2017: (name extension) - REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTERED *** VACATED
6/7/2017: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial
6/7/2017: Response (name extension) - Response ANSWER
6/26/2017: Stipulation (name extension) - No Order - Stipulation to Set Aside Default
6/11/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - to continue trial
12/28/2018: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement
12/30/2018: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)
1/11/2019: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)
3/26/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
4/18/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
Hearingat 0830 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Enforce SettlementRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice OF CONTINUANCE; Filed by: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff); As to: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff); As to: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; Filed by: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff); As to: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement scheduled for 08/14/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 09/16/2019 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff); As to: STEVE COREAS (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Enforce Settlement; Filed by: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff); As to: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJudgment [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT - Rejected; Submitted by: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff); As to: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement scheduled for 08/14/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FILED. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FILED.Read MoreRead Less
DocketRESPONSE FILED - ANSWERRead MoreRead Less
DocketREQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTERED *** VACATEDRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT ONLY PENDING *** DEFAULT PROCESSERead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILEDRead MoreRead Less
DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 08/23/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOSC SET 02/24/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDERRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by:Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - INSURANCE COVERAGE Filing Fee: 370.00Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONS FILEDRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 17K02307 Hearing Date: November 06, 2019 Dept: 94
IEAC v. Coreas, et al.
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT
(CCP § 664.6)
Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment is DENIED.
In December 2018, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) executed a Settlement Agreement with Defendant Steve Coreas (“Defendant”). (Motion, Exh. A (Settlement Agreement).) Because Defendant breached his obligations to fully pay Plaintiff for the amount owed under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff has brought the instant Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment (the “Motion”) under CCP § 664.6.
II. Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6 provides:
“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.”
“[S]trict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)
The Court notes that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action on March 26, 2019. The preliminary issue, therefore, is whether Plaintiff had properly asked the Court to retain jurisdiction under CCP § 664.6 before the dismissal. “[T]he power of the trial court under section 664.6 ‘is extremely limited.’ [Citations.]” (Howeth v. Coffelt (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 126, 134.) “‘[T]he request for retention of jurisdiction must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’” (Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 966.)
Here, in the Request for Dismissal (the “Request”) from March 26, 2019, Plaintiff specifies in Item No. 1b(6) that: “Court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP [§] 664.6.” The request was signed only by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Request was not signed by all the parties as required by Section 664.6. As the California Supreme Court has held in Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586, “the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Court cannot vacate the dismissal because Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with Section 664.6 in requesting the Court to retain jurisdiction over this case. (See Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918 [declining to enforce a settlement agreement under Section 664.6 because “[t]he Judicial Council form CIV-110 [the request for dismissal] in each case was signed only by an attorney for Mesa, Hill, and Olive.”)
The Court also notes that paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement provides that the Court would retain jurisdiction under Section 664.6. (Motion, Settlement Agreement (Exh. A) ¶ 9.) In Sayta, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th 960, the Court of Appeal dealt with the same settlement agreement with the same provision referencing retention of jurisdiction under Section 664.6. The Court of Appeal concluded “the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and the judgment is consequently void” for the same reasons the Court has explained above. (Sayta, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 965.)
As the Court of Appeal explains, “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.” (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 918.) The same applies here.
Given that Plaintiff had failed to satisfy Section 664.6 before the dismissal, it would have to enforce the Settlement Agreement through a separate lawsuit. The Court no longer has jurisdiction over this action.
IV. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases