2017-00213647-CL-CL

Discover Bank vs. Marlene L. Bingham

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP 664.6

Filed By: Hutson, Tina

Plaintiff Discovery Bank’s (“Plaintiff” Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

The Court’s inquiry in ruling on a motion for judgment pursuant to CCP §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. w. Wood

(1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn.4; see also Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.) Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement or whether they are not. (Viejo Bancorp, 217 Cal.App.3d at 209, fn.4.) By enacting Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 in 1981 (Stats. 1981, ch. 904, § 2, p. 3437), the Legislature endorsed the nonstatutory speaking motion procedure; the trial court is no longer limited to summary judgment in enforcing settlements. ( Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994; Casa de Valley View Owner’s Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1189-1190 ;Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 96 ; Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565 ; City of Fresno v. Maroot (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 755, 760-761, fn. 3.) The court in its discretion may determine the motion upon declarations alone. (Richardson v. Richardson, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at p. 97; Corkland v. Boscoe, supra; Malouf Bros. v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 280, 283-284.)

CCP § 664.6 allows the Court upon motion to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement where the parties stipulated to the settlement. The parties requested that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Here, Plaintiff seeks to enter judgment against defendant Marlene L. Bingham (“Defendant”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Plaintiff entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Pending Performance with Defendant in September of 2017 (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation was filed on October 10, 2017. (ROA 9.) The Stipulation authorizes the Court to retain jurisdiction over the action in the event Defendant failed to fulfill her obligations under the Stipulation. (Stipulation ¶¶ 8, 10.) The Stipulation provides Plaintiff may move to enter judgment in the event Defendant defaults. (Stipulation ¶ 8.) No dismissal has been entered in this case.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to make payments under the Stipulation by

failing to make payments for the month of February 2018 and each month therafter. (Hutson Decl. ¶ 4.) and now seeks to enforce the Stipulation and have the Court enter judgment against Defendant. The court in its discretion may determine the motion upon declarations alone. Richardson v. Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 97.

The Court grants the motion to enforce the settlement and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The judgment shall be for $7,149.42, plus court costs of $495.50, for a total of $7,643.92.

The Court will sign the proposed order.