This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/26/2019 at 00:38:26 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS GIOVANNI LLAMEL LOZANO

Case Summary

On 07/06/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY against GIOVANNI LLAMEL LOZANO in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9270

  • Filing Date:

    07/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

LOZANO GIOVANNI LLAMEL

 

Court Documents

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and/or Notice of Settlement and Enter Judgment

8/27/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and/or Notice of Settlement and Enter Judgment

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order For Entry of Judgment & ORDER TO RETAIN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP664.6

9/3/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order For Entry of Judgment & ORDER TO RETAIN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP664.6

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/20/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint

7/6/2018: Complaint

Summons - on Complaint

7/6/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/6/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/6/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/13/2020
  • Hearing01/13/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on 07/06/2018, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order For Entry of Judgment & ORDER TO RETAIN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP664.6; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Giovanni Llamel Lozano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/03/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/03/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and/or Notice of Settlement and Enter Judgment scheduled for 01/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • DocketMotion re: Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and/or Notice of Settlement and Enter Judgment; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Giovanni Llamel Lozano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Giovanni Llamel Lozano (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 07/14/2018; Service Cost: 75.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Giovanni Llamel Lozano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC09270    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: 94

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANT GIOVANNI LLAMEL LOZANO IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,694.95 principal and $60.00 costs.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Giovanni Llamel Lozano (“Defendant”) on July 6, 2018. On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a stipulation and order for entry of judgment and order to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In accordance with the stipulation, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement and enter judgment against Defendant. 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 demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements set forth above. (Motion, Benson Decl., ¶1 and Exh. 1.) The settlement provides that starting on December 15, 2018, Defendant would pay Plaintiff $20,442.32 through a $8,507.37 payment from his insurer, and the remainder in monthly installments. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendant’s default, Plaintiff may move for entry of the full amount of the stipulated judgment less payments made. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶5.) Payments of $8,747.37 were made towards the stipulated judgment, after which Defendant defaulted. (Id. at ¶¶5-8.) Plaintiff notified Defendant of the default but as of the filing of this Motion, the default had not been cured. (Ibid.)

Based on the stipulation for judgment and Defendant’s default thereunder, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of $11,694.95 principal and $60.00 costs. (Id. at ¶10.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.