On 04/22/2013 HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against RENEE SMITH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YVONNE T. SANCHEZ. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles, California
YVONNE T. SANCHEZ
HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY A CORP.
SMITH RENEE AN INDIVIDUAL
HAINES TODD F.
3/4/2020: Motion to Enforce Settlement
4/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
4/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/24/2020
4/27/2020: Notice - NOTICE CONTINUANCE MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
9/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT)
9/9/2020: Order - ORDER / RULING (HEARING HELD 9-9-20)
9/22/2020: Notice of Ruling
11/20/2020: Judgment - JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
12/15/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJudgment ([PROPOSED] JUDGMENT); Filed by HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (/ Ruling (Hearing held 9-9-20)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (CONTINUANCE MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT); Filed by HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:16 AM in Department C; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO RENEE SMITH; BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON 7/2/13 ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC063103 Hearing Date: September 09, 2020 Dept: C
HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SMITH
CASE NO.: VC063103
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]
Plaintiff Harco National Insurance Company’s motion to vacate dismissal, enforce settlement and enter judgment against Defendants is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff Harco National 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 pursuant to a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Installment Payments. Defendants agreed to pay the sum of $67,135.99 in installments commencing on 11/15/13. If Defendants default, Plaintiff may cause the stipulation to be filed with the court for the full amount then owing, less credit for all payments made prior to default, plus any additional court costs. (Stipulation, ¶ 5.)
Defendant has made payments totaling $14,900.00, and failed to make any of the payments due thereafter. The unpaid principal is $52,235.99. Cort costs total $478.00. (Tapper Decl., ¶ 6.)
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of settlement, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of $67,613.99.
The court declines to award pre-judgment interest because the settlement provided for a judgment for the “full amount then owing.” Pre-judgment interest was not contemplated in the settlement.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Dismissal is set aside, and judgment against Defendants is entered in the sum of $67,613.99.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases