Motion to Enter Judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6
25CV022637: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NEWMAN, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6 in Department 16D
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 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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-servicestranscripts. 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.
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
25CV022637: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NEWMAN, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6 in Department 16D
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiff American Express National Banks (Plaintiff) motion to vacate dismissal and for entry of judgment under terms of the stipulated settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, as follows.
Plaintiff seeks to have judgment entered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On October 24, 2025, this Court received from the parties a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Pending Performance Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 (Stipulation) which provided that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the matter, including the power to set aside any dismissal pursuant to section 664.6, and to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the parties settlement. The Stipulation was signed by Plaintiff and Defendant William Newman (Defendant). Defendants counsel, Clinton Rooney, also approved the Stipulation as to form.
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:
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 agreement or their counsel stipulate in writing or orally before the court, the court may dismiss the case as to the settling parties without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.
Thus, section 664.6 allows the Court upon motion to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement where the parties stipulated to settlement. The Courts inquiry in ruling on a motion for judgment pursuant to section 664.6 is generally limited to a determination of whether the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV022637: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs NEWMAN, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6 in Department 16D
parties entered into a valid and binding settlement, and the material terms thereof. (Viejo Bancorp, Inc. w. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn.4; see also Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter judgment in accordance with the terms of a written stipulated judgment.
Plaintiffs moving papers are sufficient to show the terms of the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant. The Stipulation states that Defendant agreed to pay $3,132.92 by September 28, 2027, with monthly payments of $130.54 paid on or before October 20, 2025, and continuing each month thereafter through August 28, 2027, and a final payment of $130.50 on or before September 28, 2027. It was further agreed that in the event that payments were not made pursuant to the schedule, defendant would be in default and Plaintiff would be free to pursue all available remedies, including to have judgment entered against Defendant for $4,456.50 plus Court costs, less any amounts received by Plaintiff from Defendant.
Defendant defaulted on the payments. (Declaration of Zhen Ren ¶ 7.) Specifically, Defendant failed to make payments for the month of December 2025 and each month thereafter. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs counsel acknowledges a credit in the sum of $261.08, reducing the outstanding principal balance to 4,195.42. (Ibid.) Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Defendant in the principal sum of $4,195.42, and costs of $297.61, for a total judgment of $4,493.03.
No opposition was filed to this motion. A party's failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
As a result, the Court grants the motion to vacate the dismissal and to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The judgment shall be for $4,493.03.
The Court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment.