This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 17:21:49 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO VS ROSA CARBAJAL ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/10/2015 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROSA CARBAJAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7548

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Defendants and Respondents

CARBAJAL IGNACIO

CARBAJAL ROSA

DOES 1-40

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

CLERKIN SINCLAIR & MAHFOUZ LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

ZEGEL JOHN E. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR SUBROGATION RECOVERY

7/10/2015: COMPLAINT FOR SUBROGATION RECOVERY

SUMMONS

7/10/2015: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/21/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/21/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO CCP 631

8/21/2015: DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO CCP 631

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/21/2015: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT

12/15/2015: STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT

ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT

12/15/2015: ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/10/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 92; (OSC RE Dismissal; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 92; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 92; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Stipulation; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Order; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2015
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2015
  • DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO CCP 631

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2015
  • Answer; Filed by Rosa Carbajal (Defendant); Ignacio Carbajal (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2015
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Rosa Carbajal (Defendant); Ignacio Carbajal (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR SUBROGATION RECOVERY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC587548    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: 74

BC587548 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO VS ROSA CARBAJAL

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Judgment in the amount of the principal settlement amount, interest, court costs, and attorney’s fees, less payments received from Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier is GRANTED in the total amount of $33,839.40. Moving party to give notice forthwith.

“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.” CCP § 664.6. The trial court may enter judgment pursuant to a stipulated agreement to settle in one of two ways: (1) in a writing signed by the parties; or (2) by oral agreement made “before the court.” Murphy v. Padilla (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 707, 711 12. If, however, there are disputed facts on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to section 664.6, the trial court has the authority to determine whether the parties have entered into a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. In re Marriage of Hasso (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1174; Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989.

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.

The ultimate issue whether the parties formed an enforceable contract, since a settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 815 [Rev. Denied 4/22/98]. The essential element of any contract is “consent,” which must be mutual, and whose existence is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, i.e., what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe. Id. at 811.

Enforceable Agreement

Plaintiff argues that to date, Defendant has only paid $1,420.00 and is deemed to be in default of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s counsel provided written notice of the default to Defendant by sending Past Due Notices dated July 3, 2019, September 10, 2019, and September 17, 2019. Declaration, Exh. B. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the Court to enforce the agreement and enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff attaches the fully executed settlement agreement for the claims in the instant case. Declaration, Exh. A (“Stipulation for Settlement”). The agreement is signed by both parties and dated December 3, 2015. The agreement states in pertinent part:

“B) The balance of $20,500.00 shall be paid by Defendant in the following manner:

(1) $35.00 shall be paid upon the signing of this agreement, and no later than November 15, 2015.

(2) Defendant shall thereafter make payments of $35.00 with each payment being due, consecutively, on the 15th day of each month thereafter until the balance of $20,500.00 is paid in full.

(3) If all payments are made as set forth above, then the payments will be interest free.” Stipulation for Settlement, ¶ 4.

“Should Defendant fail to make the payment, as agreed, on the 15th of each month, he will be deemed to be in default of this agreement.” Stipulation for Settlement, ¶ 6.

The terms of the agreement evidence the parties’ desire to enter into an enforceable contract. Further, the agreement expressly states that the agreement is enforceable under section 664.4 and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Stipulation for Settlement, ¶ 8. Additionally, Defendants make no opposition to the motion.

The motion to enforce settlement is GRANTED.

Sum, Interest, Costs, Attorney’s fees

The agreement states:

“If Defendant does not remedy, the attorney for Plaintiff may, by ex parte motion,

submit an order to the court for entry of judgment against Defendant without further

notice. Judgment shall be entered in the amount of $30,582.29, plus interest on that

amount, at the legal rate, from November 15, 2015, plus all costs of suit and reasonable

attorney's fees, as well as any additional costs incurred in the enforcement of this

agreement, less any payments that have been made by Defendant and Defendant's insurance carrier to Plaintiff, as of that date.” Stipulation for Settlement, ¶ 7.

Plaintiff also seeks $7,852.40 in interest, which under the terms of the Stipulation for Settlement accrued at the legal rate of 7% per annum from November 15, 2015 to July 17, 2019, the date the instant motion was prepared.

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks $517.25 in court costs, calculated as the total of the $370.00 filing fee for Plaintiff’s complaint, $87.25 service of process fee, and a $60.00 motion fee incurred in the enforcement of the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff seeks $1,307.46 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff cites Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 3.214 in calculating its attorney’s fees in default cases. Rule 3.214(a) states: “…When a promissory note, contract, or statute provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the following schedule will apply to the amount of the new judgment unless otherwise determined by the court. Default case: … $10,000.01 to $50,000, $690 plus 3% of the excess over $10,000.”

Therefore, as the principal amount owed in the instant case is $30,582.29, the amount of attorney’s fees that Plaintiff is entitled to recover is $690.00 plus 3% of the excess over $10,000, which at 3% of $20,582.29 is $617.46, totaling $1307.46.

Finally, the amount Defendant owes upon entry of judgment is less the payments previously received from Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier, totaling $6,420.00.

Judgment in the amount of the principal settlement amount, interest, court costs, and attorney’s fees, less payments received from Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier is GRANTED in the total amount of $33,839.40.