4/1 DCA Clarifies Rules For Fee Motion Filing/Service Deadline Where There Is A Dismissal Based On An Unconditional Settlement In Tandem With A Court Notice.
Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, Case No. D084360 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2026) (published) is an opinion which is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to timely filing and serving an attorney’s fees motion after a dismissal has occurred based on the terms of an unconditional settlement notice from a court clerk.
In this matter, plaintiff notified the trial court of a settlement at a trial readiness conference, prompting the court clerk to indicate in a minute order the case would be dismissed without prejudice unless a judgment or dismissal was filed by a party or an ex parte was set to show why it should not be dismissed within 45 days of the clerk’s notice—neither of which occurred. Although filing a motion for fees about 16 days after the dismissal on August 15, 2023 (which was set by the lower court for hearing much later on April 26, 2024), plaintiff did not serve the motion on the defense until April 4, 2024. The lower court denied the fee motion as untimely, also clarifying that the case had been dismissed without prejudice.
Both the lower and appellate courts agreed that the motion was untimely because it was not served within 180 days after the August 15, 2023 dismissal, with the later minute order confirming the dismissal occurring earlier given nunc pro tunc effect by the appellate court. A voluntary dismissal, though not appealable, starts the clock running on the time to move for attorney’s fees when the dismissal concludes the litigation, citing Catlin, 78 Cal.App.5th at 781, Sanabria, 92 Cal.App.4th at 426-427. Although plaintiff timely filed the motion, he served it outside of the 180-day deadline (CRC 3.1702(b)(1)) running from August 15, 2023.