2012-00132793-CL-CL

Progressive Choice Insurance vs. Maria Justine Davis

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Filed By: Tapper, Brian P.

Plaintiff Progressive Choice Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment against Defendant Maria Justine Davis
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s Motion is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

Defendant attached a copy of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (“Stipulated
Judgment”) as Exhibit A to the declaration of attorney Brian P. Tapper (“Tapper
Decl.”). The Stipulated Judgment, signed by both parties, provides that this Court
retains the right to enforce judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.
(Stipulated Judgment at 3.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement of Entire
Case on June 13, 2013, specifying that a Request for Dismissal would be filed by May
16, 2017, and that this Court would retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 664.6.

The Stipulated Judgment clarified that Defendant owes Plaintiff a principal sum of
$3,744.88, plus interest from November 2, 2010, and court costs. (Stipulated
Judgment at 1.) The Stipulated Judgment required Defendant to make monthly
payments of $75 to Plaintiff from May 1, 2013 through May 1, 2017; however,
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Defendant made one $75 payment and then “defaulted
on the terms of the payment as set forth in” the Stipulated Judgment by reason of
Defendant’s “failure to make monthly payments due on or after May 1, 2013.” (Tapper
Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff calculates the amount now owing under the Stipulated Judgment
based upon Paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 as follows: $3,669.88 in unpaid principal,
$1,192.46 interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid principal; and $413
costs for filing and service of process. (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendant seeks entry of judgment in
the sum total of $5,275.34. (Id.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, “[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 . . . the court, upon motion, may enter judgment
pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” “A procedure in which a settlement is
evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of . . . disputes
[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.” (Robertson v.
Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.) The Court’s inquiry in ruling on a motion for
judgment pursuant to Section 664.6 is generally limited to a determination of whether
the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement, and the material terms thereof.
(Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209 n.4; see also Hines v.
Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.)

Here, Defendant’s failure to file an opposition is construed as a concession of the
merits of the present motion, which is therefore granted. Having received no objection
thereto, the Court will sign the proposed Judgment submitted with the moving papers.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; California Rule of Court 3.1312.)