BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. GEORGINA A FITZGERALD

May 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 2 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 1 22-CIV-01153 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. GEORGINA A FITZGERALD

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ALEXANDER BALZER CARR GEORGINA A FITZGERALD BAHRAM MADAEN

AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT UNDER TERMS OF STIPULATED SETTLEMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s unopposed Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement is GRANTED. The court GRANTS plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (RJN) of the Stipulation Agreement.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 subdivision (a) provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Upon stipulation of the settling parties, “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 [is complete].” (Id.) “[I]f the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Hines v. Luke (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)

On September 16, 2022, plaintiff filed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, which expressly requests that this court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff also separately filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement. On September 26, 2022, this court issued an order retaining jurisdiction under section 664.6.

Here, the fully executed settlement was filed contemporaneously with the settlement, explicitly requests that the court retain jurisdiction under 664.6 – which the court did – and includes all material terms of the agreement. (See RJN, Ex. B.)

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to a judgment for the principal sum of $25,558.83 and court costs of $523.50, for a total judgment amount of $26,081.83 (RJN, Ex. B, ¶ 1.) The settlement agreement set out the terms of payment. The settlement agreement provided that in the event defendant failed to make full or timely payment pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff shall bring a noticed motion and shall be entitled to enter judgment for the full judgment amount plus any motion and/or order fees, less credit for payments made. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 7.)

Plaintiff has filed a declaration of its attorney, Brian Langedyk, supporting its motion establishing that defendant has defaulted on the payment arrangement in the agreement, with his last payment occurring on December 19, 2023. (Langedyk Decl., ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the settlement terms, plaintiff provided defendant with 10 days’ notice of intent to enter judgment, upon defendant’s

May 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 3 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ default. (Langedyk, Decl., ¶ 5, Ex A.) Prior to default, defendant has paid a total of $13,038.00 towards the judgment and the balance now due, owing and unpaid to plaintiff from Defendant is the principal sum of $12,520.33 plus court costs in the sum of $583.50 for a total judgment of $13,103.83. (Langedyk Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7.)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to enter judgment is GRANTED. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement terms, judgement shall be entered against defendant for $13,103.83.

Plaintiff provided notice that the hearing would be held at the correct courthouse, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, but stated that the hearing would be in Department 4C, that is the courtroom not the department, which is Department 4 and also stated that the hearing would be heard in Room A, which is the clerk’s office. However, the notice also provided notice of the tentative ruling system and if defendant were to come to court, either the clerk’s office or the monitors which list every hearing would direct defendant to Department 4, courtroom 4C. Thus, the court finds proper notice of the location of the hearing has been provided.

The court notes that plaintiff did serve an amended notice of the hearing date, but only changed the hearing date under the case number, but not in the body of the notice. This notice complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b), although the better practice is to also include the hearing date, in this case the amended hearing date, in the opening paragraph of the notice. (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 9:30 (June 2025 update).) The court further notes that the motion was served by mail with the defendant’s name and the name of the law firm, but not addressed to any specific lawyer. The court finds the notice proper because when a law firm is listed as attorney of record, any attorney at the firm can appear for the client. (Id., § 9.371a [citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.111(1); Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 258]; compare Triumph Precision Products, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 362, 364 [service to lawyer but not law firm is improper.) Here Maden Law, Inc. was listed as the law firm on the caption; thus notice was proper.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare for the court’s signature a written order and judgment in two separate documents 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.

Plaintiff does not have the right to contest the tentative ruling because motion explicitly states that the motion is submitted without an appearance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304(c).