Mark A. Meza v. Maserati North America, Inc.

Case Number

23CV04628

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/16/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff’s Motion For Order Setting Aside Dismissal and for Entry Of Judgment Under Terms Of Signed Settlement Agreement (CCP § 664.6.)

Tentative Ruling

Mark A. Meza v. Maserati North America, Inc.          

Case No. 23CV04628

Hearing Date: September 16, 2024                                       

HEARING:              Plaintiff’s Motion For Order Setting Aside Dismissal and for Entry Of Judgment Under Terms Of Signed Settlement Agreement (CCP § 664.6.)

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:       

For Plaintiff Mark A. Meza: Joshua M. Ullman, Johnson & Buxton, APC

For Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.: Judd A. Gilefsky, Scott D. Sharp, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

Background:

This action commenced on October 20, 2023, by the filing of the original complaint by plaintiff Mark A. Meza against FCA US, LLC, for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, related to the purchase of a 2019 Maserati Levante.

Plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on November 2, 2023, adding Maserati North America, Inc. (“MNA”) as a defendant.

On November 13, 2023, plaintiff dismissed FCA US, LLC.

MNA filed its answer to plaintiff’s FAC on December 27, 2023, asserting a general denial and 27 affirmative defenses.

The case was resolved by way of a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (Agreement”) that was signed by plaintiff on April 15, 2024, and by MNA on April 23, 2024.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, plaintiff was to surrender possession of the subject vehicle and MNA was to pay $112,188.21 for the repurchase of the vehicle, “payment of incidental, out-of-pocket expenses and includes Meza’s attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $15,000.” (Agreement, ¶ 2.) “The Parties agree that closing of the terms of this agreement shall occur no later than 60 days from MNA’s receipt of Plaintiff’s executed copy and all documents necessary to effectuate surrender of the Subject Vehicle.” (Ibid.)

“Additionally, Maserati will pay the payoff balance on the Subject Vehicle in the estimated amount of Forty Five Thousand Four Hundred Twelve Dollars and 07/100 ($45,412.07), good through April 24, 2023. The parties agree that any additional monthly payments made by Meza prior to Meza s surrender of the Subject Vehicle shall be reimbursed to Meza by the lender directly. Maserati agrees that any overpayment to the lender belongs to Meza including any interest paid by Meza pending payoff.” (Ibid.)

“The Parties agree and intend that the Superior Court, State of California, where this action was filed, shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this settlement under Civil Code Section 664.6 unless and until the filing of the Request for Dismissal with Prejudice.” (Id. at ¶ 10.)

On May 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire case.

On July 18, 2024, plaintiff filed the present motion to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, arguing that MNA has filed to comply with its obligations under the agreement. In addition to asking the court to enforce the agreement as written, plaintiff is requesting that he be awarded “incidental damages” in the amount of $1,996.27, an order that MNA pay interest for each day it is in breach of the agreement, and an order compelling MNA to pay attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3,185.00.

MNA opposes the motion as moot, claiming that plaintiff surrendered the vehicle on July 29, 2024, and that NMA mailed the settlement check to plaintiff on July 30, 2024. NMA also opposes the other relief requested by plaintiff because those items are not encompassed by the agreement.

Plaintiff filed his reply on September 9, 2024, acknowledging that MNA fulfilled the terms of the agreement but arguing that MNA was untimely in doing so. Plaintiff withdrew his request for incidental damages but requests that this court order interest and attorney’s fees.

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.)

The court has reviewed the settlement agreement. The agreement is in writing signed by all parties and sets forth all applicable terms. A valid settlement agreement was entered into. Neither party disputes this fact.

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.)

As noted above, MNA represents that, following the filing of the present motion, all terms of the agreement have been satisfied. Because the court cannot add terms to the agreement, the additional relief sought by plaintiff cannot be obtained by a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court is limited to enforcing the agreement as written. While the court understands plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the delay in compliance by MNA, Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, relating to frivolous actions or delaying tactics, is not applicable to the current request for relief.

It appears that all material terms of the agreement have been satisfied, making the motion moot. As such, the motion will be denied.