JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. vs VENTURINI

24CV019420: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. vs VENTURINI 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. 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 Court’s 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. TENTATIVE RULING

24CV019420: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. vs VENTURINI 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is unopposed and is granted. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. The Court’s inquiry in ruling on a motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is generally limited to a determination of whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement, and the material terms thereof. (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn. 4; see also Hines v.

Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-1183.) Judgment may be entered under section 664.6 regardless of whether the parties are complying with the terms of the agreement. (Viejo Bancorp, 217 Cal.App.3d at 409, fn. 4.) By enacting section 664.6, the Legislature endorsed the nonstatutory speaking motion procedure; the trial court is no longer limited to summary judgment in enforcing settlements. (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994; Casa de Valley View Owner’s Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1189-1190; Richardson v.

Richardson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 91, 96; Fiore v. Alvord (1984) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565; City of Fresno v. Maroot (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 755, 760-761.) Pursuant to section 664.6, “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate in writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court, for settlement of the case, 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 Civ.

Proc. § 664.6.) In evaluating a motion brought under section 664.6, the “trial court merely resolve[s] questions about the settlement.” (Malouf Bros. v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 283-284.) “[N]othing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. V. Fair (2014)232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984.) Thus, section 664.6 allows the Court upon motion to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement where the parties stipulate to that settlement.

Here, Plaintiff’s moving papers are sufficient to show the terms of the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Rosanna Venturini (“Defendant”). (See Def. RJN in Support of Mtn., Exh. A [Stipulation Agreement].) Under the terms of the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant, the balance due and owing by Defendant was $8,414.68. (Id., at ¶¶ 1-2.) The settlement provided that it was subject to section 664.6. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s representative signed the stipulation on November 26, 2024, and Defendant signed the stipulation on December 3, 2024. (Id., at p. 6.) The stipulation was then filed with the Court on December 17, 2024. (Id.) The terms of the stipulation required Defendant to make certain monthly payments. (Id., ¶ 4.) However, to date, Defendant has only paid $125.68, leaving a balance of $8,289.00. (Sherrill

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV019420: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. vs VENTURINI 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C

Decl., ¶ 5.) The stipulation provides that if Defendant failed to make the monthly payments as agreed upon, then Plaintiff could seek the full remaining balance and would be entitled to enter judgment for the original judgment amount, less credit for any payments received. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 4, 9.)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of no opposition being filed, the Court grants the motion. The dismissal entered on December 17, 2024, is vacated. Further, judgment shall be entered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 as against Defendant. The judgment shall be in the amount of $8,289.00.

The Court will sign Plaintiff’s Proposed Order and Judgment.