Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation
CASE NUMBER: 23CVG-00548 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. seeks to vacate the dismissal entered on November 27, 2023 and enforce the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Edgar B. Lopez. Despite being properly noticed, Defendant Lauren Taylor Gillis did not file an Opposition.
Merits. CCP § 664.6 provides the Court with authority, upon motion, to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement entered into in writing. If requested by the parties, the Court also retains jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. Id. 7
The Stipulation attached as Exhibit 1 was executed by both parties. The terms of the agreement are straightforward. The parties stipulated to a judgment of $7,127.69 which is the principal amount. No costs were part of the agreement. The agreement calls for a payment of $527.69 on or before March 28, 2025 followed by minimum monthly payments of $300.00 on or before the 28th of every month starting on April 28, 2025 until the balance is fully paid by January 28, 2027. The parties also agreed that following the dismissal, Plaintiff may reopen the case to enter judgment in the event of Defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of payment described in the agreement.
The declaration of attorney Edgar B. Lopez establishes that Defendant has made no payments and the principal sum still owing is $7,127.69. Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that Defendant breached the terms of the agreement by failing to make payments as owed. Plaintiff requests that the judgment include $300.00 in costs, however, this was not included in the Stipulation. Plaintiff may file a Memorandum of Costs.
The Motion is GRANTED. The dismissal is set aside and Judgment for the Plaintiff will be entered in the amount of $7,127.69. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order and proposed Judgment, both of which will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
****************************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings ******************************************************************************************
BAILEY VS. OLSEN
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?”