This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/15/2021 at 01:00:50 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS SERGIO RIVELINO QUINTANILLA

Case Summary

On 07/11/2019 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SERGIO RIVELINO QUINTANILLA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6455

  • Filing Date:

    07/11/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

QUINTANILLA SERGIO RIVELINO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BENSON SUSAN M

BENSON SUSAN M.

Defendant Attorney

ESMAILIAN ARPINE

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/21/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Order - Dismissal: Result: Vacated; Result Date: 10/20/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (CCP 664.6): Filed By: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/20/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment (CCP 664.6): Name Extension changed from TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL; AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT (CCP 664.6); DECLARATION IN SUPPORT AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE DISMISSAL; to and Enter Judgment (CCP 664.6); Document changed from Motion re: (name extension) to Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal; As To Parties changed from Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant) to Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketStipulated judgment entered for Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company against Defendant Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla on the Complaint filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on 07/11/2019 for the principal amount of $6,016.72 and costs of $60.00 for a total of $6,076.72.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketDismissal entered on 02/23/2021, as to entire action is Vacated - .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (HEARING ON MOTION BY PLAINTIFF (STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (HEARING ON MOTION BY PLAINTIFF (STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ...) of 10/20/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 12/16/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant); As to: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant); Service Date: 08/17/2019; Service Cost: 75.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sergio Rivelino Quintanilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC06455 Hearing Date: October 20, 2021 Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS:\r\n MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL, ENFORCE\r\nSETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT [CCP § 664.6]

\r\n\r\n

MOVING\r\nPARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company

\r\n\r\n

RESP.\r\nPARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

VACATE\r\nDISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

\r\n\r\n

(CCP\r\n§ 664.6)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement\r\nAgreement and Enter Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST\r\nDEFENDANT SERGIO RIVELINO QUINTANILLA IN\r\nTHE AMOUNT OF $6,016.72 PRINCIPAL AND $60.00 COSTS.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service\r\nTimely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP\r\n1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP\r\n12c and 1005 (b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action\r\nfor automobile subrogation.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff moves for an order vacating the\r\ndismissal of this action and entering judgment against Defendant Sergio\r\nRivelino Quintanilla pursuant to the\r\nterms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as\r\nof October 15, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as of October\r\n15, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff State\r\nFarm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant\r\nSergio Rivelino Quintanilla (“Defendant”)\r\non July 11, 2019. On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a copy of the parties’\r\nsettlement agreement with a request for dismissal and retention of jurisdiction\r\nunder Code of Civil Procedure section 664.4. (Stip and Order for Entry of\r\nJudgment, filed 01/26/21.) The request for dismissal with retention of\r\njurisdiction was granted on February 23, 2021. (Order – Dismissal, 02/23/21.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant\r\nMotion to Vacate Dismissal, Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment. To date, no\r\nopposition has been filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If parties to pending litigation\r\nstipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court\r\nor orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the\r\ncourt, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.\r\nIf requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties\r\nto enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the\r\nsettlement.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) Prior\r\nto January 1, 2021, “parties” under section 664.6 meant the litigants\r\nthemselves, not their attorneys. (Levy\r\nv. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the\r\nterm ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and\r\ndoes not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement\r\nmust have included the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the\r\nagreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment\r\nPartners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) Furthermore,

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[R]equests for retention of\r\njurisdiction must be made prior to a dismissal of the suit. Moreover, like the\r\nsettlement agreement itself, the request must be made orally before the court\r\nor in a signed writing, and it must be made by the parties, not by their attorneys,\r\nspouses or other such agents. If, after a suit has been dismissed, a party\r\nbrings a section 664.6 motion for a judgment on a settlement agreement but\r\ncannot present to the court a request for retention of jurisdiction that meets\r\nall of these requirements, then enforcement of the agreement must be left to a\r\nseparate lawsuit.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Wackeen v. Malis (2002)\r\n97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The settlement agreement complies with the statutory requirements\r\nset forth above. (Stip and Order, filed 01/26/21, p. 4.) The settlement was\r\nsigned by all parties and the Court ordered the action dismissed following the\r\nparties’ request to retain jurisdiction. (Ibid; Order – Dismissal, 02/23/21.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The settlement provides that\r\nDefendant would pay Plaintiff $5,906.13 by an initial payment of $1,406.13 through\r\ninsurance, followed by monthly payments from Defendant starting on February 1,\r\n2021. (Motion, Benson Decl., Exh. 1, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also\r\nprovides that if Defendant defaults, judgment in the amount of the Complaint\r\n($7,422.85) plus costs and interest may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor, less\r\nany amounts paid. (Id. at Exh. 1, ¶¶1, 5.) Other than $1,406.13,\r\nDefendant has made no payments towards the settlement, despite Plaintiff’s\r\ndemand. (Id. at ¶¶5-6 and Exh. 2.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is\r\nentitled to entry of judgment against Defendant in the amount of $6,016.72 principal\r\nand $60.00 costs. (Id. at ¶¶7-8.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual\r\nAutomobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.\r\nJUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANT SERGIO RIVELINO QUINTANILLA IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,016.72 PRINCIPAL\r\nAND $60.00 COSTS.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ESMAILIAN ARPINE