Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/04/2021 at 00:38:13 (UTC).

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS CHARLES LA

Case Summary

On 02/18/2016 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CHARLES LA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0994

  • Filing Date:

    02/18/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE

Defendants and Respondents

SIMCO CHARLES LANCE

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RICHARDSON FAIR & COHEN

MCCLAIN DEBORAH LORRAINE

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

2/18/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DEFAULT UNDER STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT & REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

8/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DEFAULT UNDER STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT & REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CCP 664.6 AND ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

12/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CCP 664.6 AND ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL (CCP 473))

1/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL (CCP 473))

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/17/2020

4/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/17/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Proof of Service -

4/10/2018: Proof of Service -

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

4/10/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

NOTICE OF HEARING

4/20/2018: NOTICE OF HEARING

Minute Order -

6/15/2018: Minute Order -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/21/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

6/24/2016: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

CIVIL DEPOSIT

7/14/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Minute Order -

8/3/2017: Minute Order -

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

9/11/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

Minute Order -

9/11/2017: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

11/9/2017: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF HEARING

11/20/2017: NOTICE OF HEARING

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • Docketat 09:54 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 06/01/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • Docketat 3:11 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/17/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
49 More Docket Entries
  • 06/24/2016
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2016
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2016
  • DocketANSWER - PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Charles Lance Simco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2016
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Charles Lance Simco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC610994    Hearing Date: July 20, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Pursuant to CCP Section 664.6 and Enter Judgment Against Defendant

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2016, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Charles Lance Simco (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of an automobile collision that occurred on August 10, 2014.

On October 31, 2016, default was entered against Defendant.

On June 15, 2018, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and retained jurisdiction over a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On January 23, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal because Plaintiff failed to lodge the settlement agreement Plaintiff argued Defendant failed to perform.

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and enter judgment against Defendant.

On March 18, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to set aside to May 13, 2020.

On April 17, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to set aside to August 10, 2020.

On June 1, 2020, the Court advanced the hearing on the motion to set aside to July 20, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff seeks a court order setting aside the dismissal and entering judgment because Defendant defaulted on the parties’ settlement agreement.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that “[i]f 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.”

DISCUSSION

The Court initially notes that opposing papers had be filed and personally served on July 7, 2020, at the latest, to conform with the mandates of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  No opposing papers were timely filed and served.  The Court exercises its discretion in refusing to consider any late opposing papers pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d).

Set Aside Dismissal

Plaintiff seeks to set aside dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The Court finds section 664.6 does not authorize the setting aside of a dismissal.  Rather, it is a mechanism for entering judgment when the court has retained jurisdiction after dismissal of a case.

Accordingly, the request to set aside dismissal is DENIED.

Enter Judgment

Plaintiff also seeks to enter judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

“‘[V]oluntary dismissal of an action or special proceeding terminates the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.’”  (Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917 [quoting In re Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 867] [alteration in original].)  “‘If requested by the parties,’ however, ‘the [trial] court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce [a] settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.’”  (Ibid. [quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6] [emphasis in original].)  “‘Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement.’”  (Ibid. [quoting Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37].)  

“A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 ‘must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.’”  (Ibid. [quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440].)  “The ‘request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.’”  (Ibid. [quoting Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440].)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel made the request for the Court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  (6/15/18 Minute Order.)  As the request was not made by a party, it does not comply with section 664.6 and is ineffective for retention of jurisdiction by the Court. (See Mesa RHF Partners, L.P., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918 [“‘[A] request that jurisdiction be retained until the settlement has been fully performed must be made either in writing signed by the parties themselves, or orally before the court by the parties themselves, not by their attorneys of record, their spouses, or other such agents.’” [quoting Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 440]] [alteration in original and emphasis added].)

Nor does the parties’ stipulation for conditional settlement and dismissal pursuant to section 664.6 provide a basis for the court’s retaining jurisdiction.  Although the stipulation contains a request for retention of jurisdiction by the Court and is signed by the parties, the stipulation was never presented to the Court prior to dismissal of this action. Mesa RHF Partners, L.P., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 918. [finding that a settlement agreement that was never presented to the trial court before dismissal is insufficient to retain jurisdiction].)

As the Court lacks jurisdiction, the request to enter judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC610994    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2016, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Charles Lance Simco (“Defendant”).  The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on Aubust 10, 2014.

On October 31, 2016, the Court entered default against Defendant.

On June 15, 2018, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and retained jurisdiction over a settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff field a motion to set aside the June 15, 2018 dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the June 15, 2018 dismissal because Defendant has failed to continue making payments pursuant to a stipulation.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 states: “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.” Hernandez v. Board of Education (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1175-1176.)

“[T]he very purpose of this section is to permit a court, via a summary proceeding, to finally dispose of an action when the existence of the agreement or the terms of the settlement are subject to reasonable dispute, something not permissible before the statute’s enactment.”  (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206.)

DISCUSSION

The Court finds it cannot grant the motion.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to uphold the terms of the conditional settlement agreement.  (Motion, p. 3:23-3:24; McClain Decl., ¶ 4.)  However, Plaintiff has not lodged the settlement agreement with the Court.  Exhibit A is missing.  The Court cannot ascertain Defendant’s obligations to Plaintiff under the settlement agreement without reviewing the settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.