Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6.
Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues: (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP § 664.6 where the settlement provides for retention; and (2) the ability to appeal a fees award based on a waiver clause even though it did not retard an ability to oppose a fee request at the trial level.
In this case, plaintiffs, two former employees, reached a settlement agreement with three defendants, two corporations and an individual, where plaintiffs were declared to be the prevailing party, could bring a fees/costs motion, and any award of fees/costs would be paid in 90 days. Plaintiffs did bring the fees/costs motion, being awarded close to $660,000 in fees and costs, with $599,370 being the base fee award—and the defense did not pay within 90 days. Defendants appealed.
To no avail. Their main merits challenge was that dismissed defendants could not be subject to a CCP § 664.6 settlement enforcement motion, but that was debunked because a 1993 amendment to 664.6 essentially held that a settlement agreement with a retention clause for jurisdiction to enforce the settlement could be enforced no matter if certain parties were dismissed anyway. (Eagle Fire & Water Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Dinuba, 102 Cal.App.5th 448, 458 (2024).) With respect to the fee award, the appellate court determined that the right to appeal was waived given this language in the settlement agreement: “DEFENDANTS reserve the right to oppose the amounts sought in PLAINTIFFS’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs, (excluding the right to appeal the Court’s ruling on the motion), but will not oppose on the grounds that PLAINTIFFS are not entitled to fees and costs.” Although the defense had the right to oppose the fee motion at the trial level, the settlement agreement language was unambiguous in showing that appellate rights were waived.