CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOSE A MORENO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC063418    Hearing Date: September 08, 2020    Dept: SEC

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MORENO

CASE NO.: VC063418

HEARING: 9/8/20

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Chicago Title Insurance Company’s motion to set aside the dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to settlement is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Chicago Title Insurance Company moves to enter judgment pursuant to CCP § 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. (CCP § 664.6.) The agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable courts to give it an exact meaning. If an essential element is reserved for future agreement, it is not sufficiently definite. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810-812.) The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement that is orally stipulated to before the Court. (Estate of Dipinto (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 625.)

The parties entered into a settlement at the mandatory settlement conference on 7/14/14. Defendant Moreno agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum of $20,000 payable on the 15th of each month at the rate of $50.00 per month commencing 8/15/14 and continuing in like manner until paid in full. (7/14/14 Minute Order.) If Defendant fails to cure the default the plaintiff may come into court and request a judgment be entered against Defendant for the remaining owing balance after offsetting any payments made by the Defendant. (Id.) The case was dismissed with the court reserving jurisdiction over the terms of the settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6. (Id.)

Defendant made payments totaling $2,500.00, and defaulted by failing to make any subsequent payments due thereafter. (Rousso Decl., Ex. 2.)

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of settlement, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of $17,500.00.

The court declines to award pre-judgment interest of $11,425.05 from 7/14/14 through 4/3/20 because the settlement provided for a judgment “for the remaining owing balance.” Pre-judgment interest was not contemplated in the settlement.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Dismissal is set aside, and judgment against Defendant Moreno is entered in the sum of $17,500.00.