Motion for Order Setting Aside and Vacating its Prior Order of Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties
JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 16 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM 24-CLJ-01173 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. KYAW LWIN, ET AL. LINE 6
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ROBERT SCOTT KENNARD KYAW LWIN
PLAINTIFF: BANK OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING ITS PRIOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to set aside notice of settlement and enter judgment against pursuant to stipulation against Defendant KYAW LWIN is largely GRANTED, except to the extent the instant motion requests the Court set aside the parties’ notice of settlement, such request is denied for lack of a legal basis.
Initially, the Court notes Plaintiff’s notice of hearing understandably provides the improper address for the hearing because the matter was reassigned to the Honorable David A. Silberman, Department 11, on May 11, 2026. Department 11 is not located in Redwood City as the notice states, but instead at the Central Branch Courthouse, Courtroom G, at 800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, CA 94401. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 (the Notice “must specify” the location of the hearing). There is, however, no prejudice and the court waives the defect.
Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, the court retains jurisdiction in a case pending full performance of the terms of a written settlement agreement and such agreement may then be enforced upon motion of the aggrieved party. The parties entered into a stipulated settlement agreement which was filed with the Court on April 19, 2024. A copy of the agreement is attached to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel Richard Tang at Exhibit 1 which provides that judgment in the sum of $5,514.86 would not be entered against defendant so long as defendant made monthly payments to plaintiff until defendant paid judgment amount in full.
Declaration of Richard Tang, ¶ 3. In the event of default, the parties agreed that the Court was authorized to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $5,514.86, less payments received, and court costs (including Defendant’s first appearance fees and any motion filing fee, if applicable) incurred. Tang Decl. ¶ 5. Defendant defaulted because his last payment was September 15, 2025. Tang Decl. ¶ 6.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, the evidence of defendant’s default is uncontroverted. Thus the Court finds that Plaintiff establishes entitlement to a judgment of $2,235.19 under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement (the principal sum of $5,195.74, plus previous court costs of $319.12, $15.33 e-filing fee, $245.00 Order fee and $60.00 motion fee for the filing of this motion, less $3,600.00 for payments made to date.) Accordingly, the Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is GRANTED.
Judgment in the amount of $2,235.19 shall be entered against defendant and payable upon entry of this order.
JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 17 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.