This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 01:28:52 (UTC).

NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE CO VS ROBERT PINA

Case Summary

On 03/06/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by NATIONAL LIABILITY FIRE INSURANCE CO against ROBERT PINA in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6795

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COM

Respondents and Defendants

DAVINCI BUILDERS

PINA ROBERT

DOES 1 TO 10

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/26/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER OF ROBERT PINA, DBA DAVINCI BUILDERS, TO COMPLAINT OF NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

4/27/2018: ANSWER OF ROBERT PINA, DBA DAVINCI BUILDERS, TO COMPLAINT OF NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/8/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGMENT ORDER

5/30/2018: CASE MANAGMENT ORDER

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/30/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

5/30/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, ETC

7/11/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, ETC

DECLARATION OF RANDALL A. BAKER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

7/11/2018: DECLARATION OF RANDALL A. BAKER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

RULING/ORDERS

7/26/2018: RULING/ORDERS

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

7/26/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

Brief

3/18/2019: Brief

Declaration

4/5/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

4/12/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Settlement

4/23/2019: Notice of Settlement

Request for Dismissal

4/29/2019: Request for Dismissal

SUMMONS

3/6/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT 3. ACCOUNT STATED

3/6/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT 3. ACCOUNT STATED

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Monetary Sanctions against Defendant's counsel for failure to engage in Court ordered mediation) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by National Liability & Fire Insurance Com- (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by National Liability & Fire Insurance Com- (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Declaration ( re Inability to Complete Mediation per Court Order); Filed by National Liability & Fire Insurance Com- (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Brief (PLAINTIFF'S MEDIATION BRIEF); Filed by National Liability & Fire Insurance Com- (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 04/27/2018
  • ANSWER OF ROBERT PINA, DBA DAVINCI BUILDERS, TO COMPLAINT OF NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Robert Pina (Defendant); Davinci Builders (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by National Liability & Fire Insurance Com- (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by National Liability & Fire Insurance Com- (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT 3. ACCOUNT STATED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Robert Pina (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696795    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 47

National Liability & Fire Insurance Company v. Robert Pina dba DaVinci Builders, et al.

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT (CCP § 664.6)

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff First National Insurance Company of America

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of January 3, 2020.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was a breach of contract action. Plaintiff alleged that it issued a workers’ compensation insurance policy to Defendant Robert Pina dba DaVinci Builders and that he did not pay the premiums.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement. Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal and for entry of judgment against Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff National Liability & Fire Insurance Company’s motion to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to written stipulation is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Enforce Settlement

Although Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal in order to enter judgment, this is not necessary, as the Court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. See October 29, 2014 minute order.

Plaintiff seeks an order entering judgment pursuant to the written stipulation between the parties on the ground that Defendant has defaulted on the terms of the settlement.

CCP § 664.6 provides:

If the 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.

Here, the parties stipulated to a settlement in a writing signed by the parties themselves. (Declaration of Gary A. Bemis, Exh. A.) The parties also stipulated that the Court could “resume jurisdiction” if there was a default. (Id. ¶ 12.) However, the parties did not file this stipulation with the Court and request that it retain jurisdiction until after the case was dismissed, and therefore the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. (MesaRHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918.) In MesaRHF Partners, a recent case that is not cited in Plaintiff’s motion, the court made clear that the parties must file their request for the Court to retain jurisdiction before the case is dismissed:

The City contends that the settlement agreements, which were never presented to the trial court before Mesa, Hill, and Olive requested dismissal, were the request and that request was then communicated to the trial court via the Judicial Council form CIV-110. We disagree.

The settlement agreements were not attached to the Judicial Council form requests for dismissal or otherwise transmitted to the trial court before the cases were dismissed. The City's argument runs directly contrary to our Supreme Court's determination that “the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 … means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.” (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 896 P.2d 171].) The City makes an impassioned plea that parties will be caught in a “‘Catch 22’ where any path to settlement enforcement potentially could be foreclosed to them.’” Given the instruction to litigants in the published cases on this topic, we are not persuaded by the City's argument. Mesa, Olive, and Hill can, for example, file a new action for breach of the settlement agreement. (See, e.g., Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 [9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723].) In this case, the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed.

(MesaRHF Partners, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at 917-18 (bold emphasis added).

Here, the Court acknowledges that both parties did actually sign a stipulation “reserving the court’s power to set aside the dismissal and order entry of judgment upon a showing of default in payments by the defendant.” (Bemis Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ 10.) However, the first time that document was filed was on October 18, 2019, well after the Court’s dismissal of this case on April 30, 2019.

Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is DENIED based upon a lack of jurisdiction to hear this motion.

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org