On 07/20/2012 PAL DEPOSITOR TRUST-I filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against JANET STEGMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN
GCO EDUCATION LOAN FUNDING CORP.
PAL DEPOSITOR TRUST-I
PRIVATE ACADEMIC LOANS LLC
NELSON & KENNARD
Court documents are not available for this case.
Request for Dismissal Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (IN OPPOSITION TO OSC ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement (Conditional Dec. 31, 2022 ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Svc of Summons & Co./Ptn. (by personal svc on 8-18-12 ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice (of OSC re trial court delay reduction ) Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC058707 Hearing Date: December 13, 2019 Dept: NCB
North Central District
gco education loan funding corp., et al.,
Case No.: EC058707
Hearing Date: December 13, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion to set aside dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to stipulation of the parties
Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiffs Pal Depositor Trust-I, Private Academic Loans, LLC, and GCO Education Funding Corp. (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Richland State Bank (Plaintiffs’ assignor) entered into a written contract with Defendant Janet Stegman (“Defendant”) on December 21, 2006. In the agreement, Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms of the student loan agreement and make minimum periodic payments of principal and interest. Plaintiffs allege that on May 11, 2010, Defendant failed to make monthly installment payments and that they are damaged in the principal sum of $73,484.74, plus late charges if any.
The complaint, filed July 20, 2012, alleges a single causes of action for breach of contract.
Relevant Procedural Background and Motion to Set Aside Dismissal
On October 1, 2012, GCO Education Funding Corp. (“GCO”) filed a notice of conditional settlement of the entire case. The notice states that a request for dismissal will be filed no later than December 31, 2022.
On December 6, 2012, Judge Donna Fields Goldstein (ret.) held a case management conference, and noted that a notice of settlement had been filed. The Court stated it did not accept the terms of the conditional settlement and set an OSC re dismissal for January 31, 2013.
On January 31, 2013, GCO filed a Request for Dismissal without prejudice of the action and requested that the Court retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664.6. That same day, the Court issued a minute order for the OSC, ordering the case dismissed without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP §664.6.
On June 5, 2019, GCO filed its first (unopposed) motion to set aside the dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to stipulation of the parties. On July 5, 2019, the Court denied the motion on the basis that the proof of service accompanying the moving papers was not directed to any particular individual or counsel, as it was mailed to Optima Advocates Inc., which is not a party to this action.
On October 25, 2019, GCO filed this instant (second) motion to set aside the dismissal and for entry of judgment pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief to this motion.
“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.)
CCP §664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) Under California law, Courts may continue jurisdiction over parties and their litigation, for the purpose of enforcing their settlement agreement, despite a suit's having been dismissed, only when the parties request the retention of jurisdiction in a manner that satisfies the requirements of CCP section 664.6. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.)
The proof of service attached to the notice of motion states that the moving papers were served on October 25, 2019 by mail on Defendant Janet Stegman at 18635 Alexandria Way, Grass Valley, CA 95949.
As the motion was served on Defendant, issues that were raised in the first motion regarding service have now been addressed and cured.
A copy of the Stipulation Agreement (“Stipulation”) is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Kristen P. Sleezer, counsel for GCO. (Sleezer Decl., ¶3, Ex, 1 [Stipulation].) The Stipulation states in relevant part that:
GCO shall have judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $76,279.43 (which includes principal of $73,484.74, court costs of $435.00, and attorney’s fees of $2,359.69). (Stipulation, ¶1.)
Defendant agrees that the sum is currently due, owing, and unpaid. (Id., ¶2.)
Judgment shall not be entered in favor of GCO and against Defendant so long as Defendant pays the down payment of $1,000.00 by 8/22/12, followed by a minimum sum of $300.00/month commencing 8/22/12 and continuing on/before the 22nd of each month thereafter until the judgment amount is paid in full to Nelson & Kennard. (Id., ¶¶3-4.) There is a 10-day grace period to make payments. (Id., ¶5.)
Upon full payment, GCO shall cause a Request for Dismissal to be filed on the entire action with prejudice. (Id., ¶6.)
Upon Defendant’s default, the Stipulation may be filed with a declaration of default and judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants for the full amount less payments received, plus court costs and attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining judgment. (Id., ¶7.) The prevailing party to any action to enforce the Stipulation shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. (Id., ¶11.)
The parties request the Court’s jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to CCP §664.6. (Id., ¶8.)
The Stipulation is signed by Defendant, defense counsel (J.C. Flores), GCO (by Brandon Dale, Vice President), and GCO’s counsel (Clifton Inohara of Nelson & Kennard).
Merits of Motion
GCO moves to enforce the Stipulation on the grounds that Defendant defaulted on her payments.
As discussed above, the Court has retained jurisdiction pursuant to CCP §664.6 of this matter. Thus, the Court may hear this matter on its substantive merits.
In support of the motion, GCO provides the declaration of its counsel, Kristen P. Sleezer.
Ms. Sleezer states that Defendant defaulted on her payments on August 22, 2017. (Sleezer Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2 [Debtor File Balance Report].) Based on Defendant’s default, GCO requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $73,484.74, plus $435.00 court costs, $69.50 process server fees, and $60 court costs for filing this motion, less $17,200.00 (for the payments made to date). (Id., ¶7.) Thus, GCO seeks a total judgment sum of $56,849.24. (Id.)
Based on the terms of the signed Stipulation and Defendant’s default, the Court grants the motion and will enter judgment in GCO’s favor and against Defendant.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court grants GCO’s motion to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment against Defendant Janet Stegman pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation. Judgment is entered against Defendant in the total amount of $56,849.24 (i.e., $73,484.74, plus $435.00 court costs, $69.50 process server fees, and $60 court costs for filing this motion, less $17,200.00 for the sums paid by Defendant prior to default).
Plaintiff GCO shall provide notice of this order.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases