Midland Funding LLC vs Margarita Sapiens

Case Number

17CV01313

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/30/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Judgment Motion for Stipulated Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Midland Funding, LLC v. Margarita Sapiens      

Case No. 17CV01313         

Hearing Date: September 30, 2024                                       

HEARING:              Plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC’s Motion For Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff  Midland Funding, LLC.: Donald Sherrill, Hunt &    Henriques

For Defendant Margarita Sapiens: Self-Represented

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC for entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted.

Background:

This action commenced on March 24, 2017, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC (“plaintiff”) against defendant Margarita Sapiens (“defendant”) for account stated and open book account.

As alleged in the complaint: Plaintiff is a debt buyer. (Compl., ¶ 5.) On June 2, 2014, GE Capital Retail Bank, which later changed its name to Synchrony Bank, issued a credit card to defendant and defendant defaulted on making the required payments. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Subsequently, all rights, title, and interest in the account were assigned to plaintiff. (Ibid.) At the time the complaint was filed, plaintiff owed $2,722.39. (Compl., ¶ 16 & Exh. B.)

On October 31, 2017, the parties filed a settlement agreement which retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (“agreement”). The agreement was signed by defendant on September 20, 2017, and by plaintiff on October 11, 2017. The agreement provides that defendants stipulate to entry of judgment in favor of defendant in the principal sum of $2,722.39, plus court costs pursuant to a memorandum of costs which is limited to plaintiff’s filing fee, cost for service of process, and fees for any motion, application, or order that is granted. (Agreement, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff will not request that judgment be entered so long as defendant pays to plaintiff a down payment of $222.39, by September 20, 2017, followed by a minimum payment of $100.00 by the twenty-first day of each month commencing October 2017. (Agreement, ¶ 3.)

Defendant has defaulted on the agreement, with the last payment being on September 17, 2018. (Langedyk Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant has paid a total of $1,322.39, with an amount owing of $1,400.00 in principal and $599.50 in court costs, for a total of $1,999.50. (Langedyk Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7.)

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:

“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of 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.

“(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

“(1) The party.

“(2) An attorney who represents the party.

“(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf.

“(c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile court or a dependency court.

“(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party’s express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.”

“A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id.)

A court hearing a motion brought under section 664.6 may “receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment”, but may not “create the 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.)

“A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.” (Ibid.) “In order for acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal “ ‘must be sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance promised is reasonably certain.’ ” [Citation.] A proposal “ ‘cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the terms of the contract are reasonably certain. [¶] The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining . . . the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.’ ” [Citation.] If, by contrast, a supposed “ ‘contract’ ” does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, there is no contract. (See, e.g., 1 Williston on Contracts (4th ed. 1990, Lord) § 4:18, p. 414 [“It is a necessary requirement that an agreement, in order to be binding, must be sufficiently definite to enable the courts to give it an exact meaning.”]; see also Civ. Code § 3390, subd. 5 [a contract is not specifically enforceable unless the terms are “ ‘sufficiently certain to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.’ ”] )” (Id. at pp. 811-812.)

The parties entered into a valid and enforceable contract, with reasonably certain terms, and have agreed that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

As noted above, the parties executed a settlement agreement in September and October 2017, stipulating to the settlement and the court retaining jurisdiction. The settlement agreement was filed on October 31, 2017. “A written stipulation between attorneys recognizing jurisdiction of the court over the parties constitutes a General appearance by defendant.” (General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 449, 453.)

The motion will be granted.