Tentative Ruling: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA vs David Vasquez
Case Number
25CV07586
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Tue, 10/20/2026 - 08:30
Nature of Proceedings
Motion to Vacate
Tentative Ruling
Tentative Ruling:
As discussed more fully below, the court grants the unopposed motion to set aside the dismissal and enter the judgment as requested.
The parties are instructed to appear at the hearing for oral argument. Appearance by Zoom Videoconference is optional and does not require the filing of Judicial Council form RA-010, Notice of Remote Appearance. (See Remote Appearance (Zoom) Information | Superior Court of California | County of Santa Barbara.)
Background:
On December 5, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract against defendant. It alleged that defendant incurred a debt in the principal sum of $5,734.13 pursuant a contract (cardmember agreement) executed on June 6, 2019. On or about May 26, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation Agreement in which the parties agreed to the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the full amount, plus a first appearance fee. (Stipulation filed 4/14/26.)[1] The parties agreed that judgment would not be entered so long as plaintiff is not in default of the agreed upon payment plan. (Id. ¶ 3.) On April 16, 2026, the court dismissed the case without prejudice and retained jurisdiction for enforcement.
On July 20, 2026, plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to the stipulation. The motion was timely served by mail on the defendant. There is no opposition to the motion.
Analysis:
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6:
“If 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, 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.”
“Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement… The court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the statute even after a dismissal, but only if the parties requested such a retention of jurisdiction before the dismissal. Such a request must be made either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” (Hines v. Lukes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1182, internal citations omitted.) Here, the court retained jurisdiction pursuant to the Stipulation. (See Order filed 4/16/26.)
“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.) Here, the agreement is in a writing signed by all parties and sets forth all applicable terms. A valid settlement agreement has been entered into for money owed by defendant to plaintiff. (Stipulation filed 4/14/26.)
Plaintiff has submitted evidentiary support to enforce the settlement agreement by entry of judgment. According to the declaration of Brian Langedyk, “Defendant has defaulted on the payment arrangement under the Stipulation Agreement. The business records of Plaintiff’s Counsel indicate that the last payment received was on April 27, 2026.” (Langedyk Decl., ¶ 5.) According to counsel, the balance due is $ 4,302.00. (Langedyk Decl., ¶ 6.) This is sufficient evidence to enter judgment for the balance due.
The court grants the unopposed motion to enter a total judgment of $4,302.00. The proposed order and proposed judgment adequately reflect this order.
[1] The court grants plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of this stipulation, which is also authenticated as an exhibit to the Langedyk Declaration.