This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/20/2019 at 10:38:17 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE VS PEREZ, ESMERALDA

Case Summary

On 01/09/2017 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against PEREZ, ESMERALDA. 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 Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0728

  • Filing Date:

    01/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

Defendants

PEREZ ESMERALDA

CERVANTES RUBEN

CERVANTES RUBEN AKA ESPINOZA RUBEN CERVANTES

PEREZ ESMERALDA AKA VAZQUEZ ESMERALDA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

REESE LAW GROUP

Defendant Attorney

CLEMENTS & KNOCK LLP

 

Court Documents

Order - Dismissal

3/9/2018: Order - Dismissal

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH; CCP 664.6

3/9/2018: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH; CCP 664.6

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/09/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/21/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/21/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketStipulation and Order FOR DISMISSAL WITH RESERVATION TO VACATE AND ENTER JUDGMENT UPON BREACH; CCP 664.6; Signed and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE (Plaintiff); As to: ESMERALDA PEREZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketOrder for dismissal Without Prejudice entered as to entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2017
  • DocketRESPONSE FILED - ANSWER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • DocketDECLARTION OF DILIGENCE FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF MAILING FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2017
  • DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 07/09/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2017
  • DocketOSC SET 01/09/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - AUTO Filing Fee: 370.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17K00728    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 94

State Farm v. Perez, et al.

VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

(CCP § 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANT ESMERALDA PEREZ AKA ESMERALDA VAZQUEZ IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,850.00 principal and $60.00 costs.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Esmeralda PereS aka Esmeralda Vazquez (“Defendant Vasquez”), Ruben Cervantes aka Ruben Cervantes Espinoza (“Defendant Espinoza”) on January 10, 2017. Both Defendants filed an Answer on July 19, 2017. On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a copy of the parties’ settlement agreement and the Court dismissed the action with an order to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The settlement, however, is only between Plaintiff and Defendant Perez.

On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enforce Settlement. Defendant Perez filed her opposition on November 25, 2019.

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

The Court notes that as the settlement and retention of jurisdiction as to Defendant Perez only, Defendant Espinoza has been completely dismissed from this action. As to Defendant Perez, Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements set forth above. (Motion, Pleasant Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) The settlement provides that Defendant Perez would pay Plaintiff $13,100.94 through a $5,000.00 payment from her insurer, and the remainder in monthly installments. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶2.) The settlement agreement also provides that upon Defendant’s default, judgment in the amount of the Complaint plus costs may be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.) Defendant Perez has made payments of $6,250.00 and thereafter defaulted. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) Plaintiff notified Defendant of the default and reminded her that under the Stipulation, she had 14 days to cure the default. (Id. at Exh. B.) As of the filing of this Motion, the default had not been cured.

Defendant Perez filed an opposition indicating she is in the process of curing the default, however, under the terms of the stipulation, the default must be cured within 14 days of default. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶3.) Plaintiff gave Defendant notice of the default on February 20, 2019. (Id. at Exh. B.) Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of $6,850.00 principal and $60.00 costs. (Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.