| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Motion to Enter Judgment
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 03/25/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings
Motion of Plaintiff American Express National Bank to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff American Express National Bank: Janet L. Brown, Douglas S. Wallace, Zhen Ren, Zwicker & Associates P.C. For Defendant Alexander Van Meijeren aka A P Van Meijeren: Self Represented
For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted in the amount of $26,256.65. Costs will also be awarded in the amount of $517.51 for a total judgment of $26,774.16.
Background
This action commenced on April 1, 2025, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff American Express National Bank (Plaintiff) against Defendant Alexander Meijeren aka A P Van Meijeren (Defendant) for Breach of Contract.
As alleged in the complaint, on June 12, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written agreement for issuance of a credit card. Defendant used the credit card, and, on June 7, 2024, Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay amounts owed. The complaint alleges $33,028.94 as the outstanding balance.
On April 21, 2025, Defendant filed a general denial to the complaint.
On July 9, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation for entry of judgment pending performance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Arguing that Defendant defaulted on the agreement, Plaintiff now moves to enter judgment. The motion was timely served on Defendant via first class mail. Defendant has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.
Analysis: Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides: "(a) 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 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. "(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: "(1) The party. "(2) An attorney who represents the party. "(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf. "(c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile Court or a dependency Court. "(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party's express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline."
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
"A Court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement." (Hines v. Lukes (2008) Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)
"If 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." (Id.)
A Court hearing a motion brought under section 664.6 may "receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment", but may not "create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon." (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.)
As noted above, on July 9, 2025, the parties submitted a stipulation for entry of judgment pending performance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (stipulation).
The terms of the stipulation include: The parties agree that Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $33,028.94 relative to the account ending in 6008. (Stipulation, ¶ 2.)
Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $23,219.34 pursuant to a payment schedule beginning on April 18, 2025, and the final payment being due and payable on March 28, 2027. (Id., at ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)
In the event that Defendant fails to make any payments on or before the agreed upon due dates, Plaintiff may immediately enforce the agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 in the amount of $33,028.94 plus Court costs, less any amounts received by Plaintiff from Defendant. (Stipulation, ¶ 6.)
The stipulation is signed by counsel for Plaintiff as well as by Defendant.
"A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts." (Ibid.)
"In order for acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal " 'must be sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance promised is reasonably certain.' " [Citation.] A proposal " 'cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the terms of the contract are reasonably certain. [¶] The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining . . . the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.' " [Citation.] If, by contrast, a supposed " 'contract' " does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, there is no contract. (See, e.g., 1 Williston on Contracts (4th ed. 1990, Lord) § 4:18, p. 414 ["It is a necessary requirement that an agreement, in order to be binding, must be sufficiently definite to enable the Courts to give it an exact meaning."]; see also Civ. Code § 3390, subd. 5 [a contract is not specifically enforceable unless the terms are " 'sufficiently certain to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.' "])" (Id. at pp. 811-812.)
The stipulation contains definite terms that are reasonably certain. The parties entered into an enforceable contract.
Defendant failed to make payments for the month of November 28, 2025 and each month thereafter. (Ren Decl., ¶ 7.)
The last payment was received on October 20, 2025, giving Defendant a credit of $6,772.29 on the amount owed, reducing the outstanding principal balance to $26,256.65. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff also seeks Court costs of $517.51, pursuant to a memorandum of costs filed and served on January 2, 2026.
"A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).)
Defendant has not filed any objection to the memorandum of costs or filed a motion to strike costs. The costs are recoverable.
The motion will be granted.
Tentative Ruling: Belladiem Bookin v. Eric Torbet, et al. Tentative Ruling: Belladiem Bookin v. Eric Torbet, et al.