LVNV Funding, LLC v. Gloria Maceda

Case Number

24CV02642

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/14/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC: Donald Sherrill, Hunt & Henriques LLP

For Defendant Gloria Maceda: Self Represented

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted in the amount of $1,980.00. Any costs to be recovered shall be pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. Plaintiff shall prepare and file a new order and new judgment that omits the claimed Court costs.

Background

This action commenced on May 14, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) against Defendant Gloria Maceda for Account Stated and Open Book Account.

As alleged in the complaint, Credit One Bank, N.A. issued a credit account to Maceda and Maceda used the credit account to make purchases and transactions. Maceda defaulted on making the required payments. Thereafter, LVNV was transferred all right, title, and interest in the credit account. The balance at charge-off was $2,970.88. The date of the last payment on the credit account was November 20, 2021.

On March 17, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated agreement, with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, agreeing that Maceda would pay LVNV $2,970.88. Payment was to begin with a down payment of $165.88 no later than May 31, 2024, followed by payments of $165.00 each month. The agreement is signed by both parties.

Arguing that Defendant defaulted on the agreement, Plaintiff now moves to enter judgment. LVNV acknowledges that Maceda paid $990.88 under the terms of the agreement and now seeks judgment for the unpaid principal of $1,980.00 plus Court costs in the amount of $344.61. The motion was timely served on Defendant via first class mail on August 29, 2025.

Defendant has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

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 Court has carefully reviewed the stipulated agreement. The stipulation contains definite terms that are reasonably certain. The parties entered into an enforceable contract.

Judgment will be entered for the unpaid principal.

As noted above, LVNV also seeks costs of $344.61.

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).)

The motion will be granted to the extent that the judgment will be for the outstanding principal balance. Should Plaintiff claim costs of litigation, Plaintiff will be directed to proceed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.