MOTION FOR ENTERING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT UNDER SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT [C.C.P. §664.6]
May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 4 24-CLJ-05448 SYNCHRONY BANK VS. MARITES DE LA CRUZ
SYNCHRONY BANK STELLA PARK MARITES DE LA CRUZ
MOTION FOR ENTERING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT UNDER SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT [C.C.P. §664.6]
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Synchrony Bank’s Motion for Entering Judgment Pursuant to Defendant’s Default Under Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
This case is an active case on the court’s docket. Defendant has been served, but has not made an appearance. No default has been taken. According to the declaration of plaintiff’s counsel, Spenser Penuela, the parties settled the case. (Pennela Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff did not file a notice of settlement of the case as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385 or request that the court retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Now, without serving defendant, plaintiff has filed this motion for the second time.
Plaintiff’s prior motion for an order entering judgment was denied for insufficient proof of service and improper notice. (See Nov. 18, 2025 Minute Order.) Plaintiff states that it is unable to contact defendant directly pursuant to Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1788.14, subdivision (c) because it has been informed in writing that defendant is represented by an attorney with respect to a consumer debt. (Penuela Decl., ¶¶8-9.) Plaintiff points to a July 17, 2025 letter as evidence of “attempts to contact the defendant’s attorney unsuccessfully.” (Id., at ¶7, Exh. 2.)
That letter does not reference any motion. (Id.) The parties’ settlement agreement contains a clause stipulating that the filing of the agreement shall constitute defendant’s general appearance if defendant has not already made an appearance. (Id., at ¶4, exh. 1, ¶8.) While there is a letter to an attorney (id., exh. 2), there is no evidence that the attorney will represent defendant if a motion is brought.
Since the filing of the agreement constitutes a general appearance, defendant is entitled to notice of the motion. (
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?”
Plaintiff has not served defendant or his counsel with motion. Therefore, defendant does not have notice of the motion and, therefore, the court must deny the motion because it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th
May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ 1190, 1204–1205 [court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed].) The motion must be served on defendant and, if plaintiff introduces evidence demonstrating that the attorneys have agreed to represent defendant after execution of the settlement agreement for purposes of this motion, then served on defendant’s attorney. Under the facts presented to the court, plaintiff can serve both.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, 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 the California Rules of Court.