Motion to Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement
25CV001764: CITIBANK N.A. vs CULVER 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in Judge Richard C. Miadichs absence, any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 16B in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang presiding.
Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:
(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and
(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.
If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.
The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:
https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16159979406
SIP Address:
25CV001764: CITIBANK N.A. vs CULVER 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C
16159979406@sip.zoomgov.com
(833) 568-8864
ID: 16159979406
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Citibank, N.A.s (Plaintiff) motion to enforce settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
This is a credit card collections action.
The parties previously negotiated a settlement that was memorialized in writing signed by both parties (Stipulation Agreement), which required Defendant Loretta Culver
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV001764: CITIBANK N.A. vs CULVER 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C
(Defendant) to make a series of payments to Plaintiff in the total amount of $5,035.34. (See Stipulation Agreement ¶ 4, attached as Ex. B to Pl.s Request for Judicial Not. ISO Mot.[1]) The Stipulation Agreement provided that if Defendant failed to make full and timely payment of any installment or if any payment was reversed, Plaintiff would be entitled to the full remaining balance due, and Plaintiff would be entitled to enter judgment for the judgment amount ($5,035.34) plus court costs pursuant to a memorandum of costs, less credit for payments made before the time of default. (Ibid.)
According to the moving papers, Defendant did make a number of the payments as specified by the terms of the settlement but failed to make payments after September 29, 2025 and has failed to come current on her settlement obligations. (See Decl. of Brian Langedyk ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-6.)
Plaintiff now moves to enforce the terms of the Stipulation Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In particular, Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Defendant for the total of $3,76.95, which comprises $3,163.34 (the judgment amount of $5,035.34 minus $1,872.00 in payments made), and $603.61 in costs. (Langedyk Decl. ¶ 6; see also Memorandum of Costs, Jan. 22, 2026.)
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 the parties to the settlement . . . stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may . . . retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)
The evidence presented and the records in this action support that the parties entered a written settlement and that the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement by entering a stipulated judgment in Plaintiffs favor.
Further, Defendant does not oppose the motion. The Court construes Defendants failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes that ground].)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV001764: CITIBANK N.A. vs CULVER 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C
For the stated reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court will sign the proposed order and separate proposed judgment that were submitted with the moving papers.
[1] Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of the parties Stipulation Agreement, which was filed in this action on July 14, 2025, is unopposed and granted.