Renewed Motion to Compel
create a substantial risk of inconsistent verdicts. The Court concludes that separate trials will not prevent undue prejudice or conserve the Court's time and resources or allow the evidence for each Plaintiff to be presented in a clear, logical, and efficient manner as claimed by the Defendants. Separate trials will not promote a more focused evaluation of each claim and will not likely facilitate the resolution of the action. The Court will not order separate trials. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if separate trials were ordered.
The administration of justice would be prejudiced if separate trials were ordered. Tentative Ruling: Bank of America NA vs Jose Reyes Ochoa Tentative Ruling: Bank of America NA vs Jose Reyes Ochoa Case Number 25CV03346 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Set Aside Dismissal Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.: Donald Sherrill, Brian Langedyk, Hunt & Henriques, LLP# For Defendant Jose Reyes Ochoa: No appearance RULING For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiff to vacate dismissal and enter judgment under terms of a stipulated settlement is granted, in part.
The dismissal of this action entered on August 26, 2025, is set aside. Judgment in the amount of $3,788.93 shall be entered against defendant Jose Reyes Ochoa and in favor of plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. Plaintiff shall submit a corrected proposed order and judgment for the court's signature and, on or before April 8, 2026, serve and file proof of service of notice of this ruling on defendant at all known addresses.
Background
As alleged in the complaint filed by plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.: On July 20, 2023, a written "Credit Card Agreement" (the Agreement) was made between plaintiff and defendant Jose Reyes Ochoa. (Compl., P.P. BC-1, exhibit A [Agreement].) On March 30, 2024, defendant breached the Agreement by failing to make required periodic payments. (Compl., P. BC-2.) The account was subsequently charged-off and the entire balance is due, owing, and payable by plaintiff. (Ibid.) The current account balance is $3,788.93, which includes applicable payments and credits. (Compl., P.
BC-4.) The account is not accruing post charge-off interest. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed its complaint against defendant on May 30, 2025. The complaint, which is prepared on a form approved for use by the Judicial Council of California, asserts one cause of action against defendant for breach of contract. On August 25, 2025, plaintiff filed a Stipulation Agreement (the Stipulation) signed by plaintiff on June 22, 2025, and ostensibly signed by defendant on July 15, 2025. (Stipulation at p. 8.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties agree that the principal sum owed by defendant for the account number ending in 3545, totals $3,788.93. (Stipulation, P.P. 1-2.)
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?”
Defendant agrees to the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in that principal sum, plus court costs of $543.61 inclusive of any required first appearance fee, for a total judgment of $4,332.54 (the Judgment Amount). (Stipulation, P. 1.) The Stipulation requires defendant to make a one-time payment to plaintiff of $545.54, on or before July 25, 2025; followed by a minimum payment of $541 on or before the twenty-fifth day of each month commencing on
August 25, 2025; followed by a final payment of $541 on or before February 25, 2026, until defendant has paid the Judgment Amount. (Stipulation, P. 4.) Those payments must be made to plaintiff's counsel. (Stipulation, P. 6.) The timely receipt by plaintiff of those consecutive monthly installments, which total $4,332.54, will constitute full satisfaction of the Judgment Amount. (Ibid.) The Stipulation provides that plaintiff will not request entry of judgment so long as defendant is not in default as to the payment plan set forth in the Stipulation. (Stipulation, P. 3.)
If defendant fails to make full and timely payment of any installment due, then the full remaining balance will be due, and plaintiff shall be entitled to enter judgment for the Judgment Amount plus any fees required by the court, less credit for any payments made. (Stipulation, P. 4.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties request that the court retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and dismiss the case without prejudice. (Stipulation, P. 7.) The parties further agree that, in the event of a default by defendant and upon the filing of a motion by plaintiff, the court shall vacate the dismissal and enter judgment for the Judgment Amount, plus any required fees and less any payments made. (Ibid.)
On August 26, 2025, the court signed and entered an order pursuant to the Stipulation, dismissing the action under the conditions stipulated to by the parties with the court retaining jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. A request for dismissal of the action without prejudice and with the court retaining jurisdiction was filed on that same date. On October 17, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Intention to Request Entry of Judgment Under Stipulation" (the Notice), stating that defendant is past due in their obligations under the terms of the Stipulation, in the amount of $1,627.54, and requesting that defendant pay that amount within 10 days, otherwise plaintiff will move for entry of judgment.
On January 15, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for an order vacating the dismissal and for entry of judgment under the terms of the Stipulation, and separately filed a memorandum of costs. The motion is made on the grounds that the Stipulation requires defendant to pay to plaintiff the principal sum described above, plus costs according to the memorandum of costs; and that in the event of a default, defendant agreed to pay the full balance of the account plus costs, less payments received before default.
In support of the motion, plaintiff's counsel, Brian Langedyk (attorney Langedyk) states that the business records of Hunt & Henriques show that no payments have been received from defendant; that defendant was provided with 10 days' written notice of their failure to make agreed upon payments and plaintiff's intention to request entry of judgment under the terms of the Stipulation; and that the balance due, owing, and unpaid to plaintiff from defendant is the sum of $3,788.93, plus court costs in the amount of $613.61, for a total judgment of $4,402.54.
Defendant has not filed an opposition or other response to the motion.
Analysis
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." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 664.6, subd. (a).) "The court's retention of jurisdiction under section 664.6 includes 'jurisdiction over both the parties and the case itself, that is, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.' [Citation.]" (Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1061, original italics.) "The retention of jurisdiction pursuant to section 664.6 is intended to allow the court to ensure all parties perform pursuant to a settlement agreement that results in a dismissal of a lawsuit. [Citation.]
Section 664.6 generally allows a court to enter judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement despite the dismissal of the complaint, which ordinarily deprives the court of continuing jurisdiction." (Howeth v. Coffelt (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 126, 134.) "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 410.10.) The present record, absent a dispute by defendant, is sufficient to show a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute at issue in this case. (Shapell