This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 00:06:55 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ALONDRA

Case Summary

On 12/14/2017 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ALONDRA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7048

  • Filing Date:

    12/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Defendants and Respondents

ALONDRA SALGADO QUIGG

DOES I TO V

QUIGG ALONDRA SALGADO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BENSON SUSAN M. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

SEREN SANFORD ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

12/14/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

12/14/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Order to Show Cause); Filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • Answer; Filed by ALONDRA SALGADO QUIGG (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC687048    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

STATEFARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALONDRA SALGADO QUIGG,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC687048

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March 3, 2021

On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auotmobile Insurance Company filed this action against Alondra Salgado Quigg for property damage in the sum of $45,491.18.  On May 1, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment in which Plaintiff was to recover $45,491.18 from Defendant and the filing and entry of judgment would be stayed upon certain terms and conditions.  (Benson Decl., Ex. A.)  First, $25,000 was to be paid by Defendant’s insurer, Integon (Benson Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 2(a)(i).)  Second, Defendant was to pay $100 per month beginning May 1, 2019 until the balance was met.  (Ex. A, ¶ 2(a)(ii).)  If Defendant failed to make payments, Plaintiff would be allowed to enter judgment for the full amount less any monies paid to date of the breach, and shall also file a partial satisfaction of judgment for all sums previously paid.   (Ex. A, ¶ 5.)  

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)  

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.  (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)  The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

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.)  The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.  [Citation.]”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a “writing signed by the parties” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)

Plaintiff attaches a copy of the stipulation which is signed by the parties.  The agreement shows that the parties agreed to have judgment entered in the amount of $45,491.18 unless Defendant paid the sum of $29,000, which would consist of $100 a month beginning May 1, 2019 plus $25,000 paid by Defendant’s insurer, Integon.

Defendant made payments in the total sum of $1,100 and her insurance carrier paid $25,00 leaving a balance of $2,9000(Benson Decl., ¶ 5.)  However, Defendant defaulted on her payments; her last payment was made in March 5, 2020.  (Benson Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff sent Defendant a default payment letter giving notice of Defendant’s past due balance of $400.  (Benson Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 2.)  

Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion.  Defendant’s Motion to enter judgment is GRANTED.  Judgment will be entered against Defendant for $45,491.18, less payments of $26,100 for a principal sum of $19,391.18 plus $60 for a total of $19,451.18.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 3rd day of March 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC687048    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

STATEFARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALONDRA SALGADO QUIGG,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC687048

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March 3, 2021

On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auotmobile Insurance Company filed this action against Alondra Salgado Quigg for property damage in the sum of $45,491.18.  On May 1, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment in which Plaintiff was to recover $45,491.18 from Defendant and the filing and entry of judgment would be stayed upon certain terms and conditions.  (Benson Decl., Ex. A.)  First, $25,000 was to be paid by Defendant’s insurer, Integon (Benson Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 2(a)(i).)  Second, Defendant was to pay $100 per month beginning May 1, 2019 until the balance was met.  (Ex. A, ¶ 2(a)(ii).)  If Defendant failed to make payments, Plaintiff would be allowed to enter judgment for the full amount less any monies paid to date of the breach, and shall also file a partial satisfaction of judgment for all sums previously paid.   (Ex. A, ¶ 5.)  

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)  

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.  (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)  The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

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.)  The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.  [Citation.]”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a “writing signed by the parties” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)

Plaintiff attaches a copy of the stipulation which is signed by the parties.  The agreement shows that the parties agreed to have judgment entered in the amount of $45,491.18 unless Defendant paid the sum of $29,000, which would consist of $100 a month beginning May 1, 2019 plus $25,000 paid by Defendant’s insurer, Integon.

Defendant made payments in the total sum of $1,100 and her insurance carrier paid $25,00 leaving a balance of $2,9000(Benson Decl., ¶ 5.)  However, Defendant defaulted on her payments; her last payment was made in March 5, 2020.  (Benson Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff sent Defendant a default payment letter giving notice of Defendant’s past due balance of $400.  (Benson Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 2.)  

Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion.  Defendant’s Motion to enter judgment is GRANTED.  Judgment will be entered against Defendant for $45,491.18, less payments of $26,100 for a principal sum of $19,391.18 plus $60 for a total of $19,451.18.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 3rd day of March 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SEREN SANFORD ESQ.