A lien order entered after a voluntary dismissal was void, and the jurisdiction point could be raised first on appeal
Is an order entered after a voluntary dismissal with prejudice void? In Slamer v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, the Fourth District, Division One, held that a workers' compensation lien reimbursement order entered after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice was void for lack of jurisdiction. The court reversed, and it rejected the argument that the plaintiffs forfeited the point by not making it below.
What happened in Slamer
Jennifer Slamer was injured in February 2016 by exposure to a disinfectant made by Ecolab while she was working for Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). SCPMG settled her workers' compensation claim and, during the later civil case, filed notices of lien for the benefits it paid on any judgment or settlement she obtained.
The Slamers sued Ecolab, SCPMG and related entities in May 2017. SCPMG and its related entities were dismissed with prejudice after demurrers and summary judgment motions. The case went to trial against Ecolab, and before it reached the jury the Slamers and Ecolab signed a confidential settlement on April 19, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the Slamers voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice.
The Slamers refused SCPMG's requests for reimbursement, and mediation failed. SCPMG filed a motion for reimbursement on February 16, 2024. On April 18, 2025, the trial court granted it and ordered the Slamers to repay the full lien plus interest.
Can a trial court rule on a motion after a voluntary dismissal with prejudice?
The Slamers' appeal attacked the order on several grounds, including comparative fault, attorney fees and interest. While the Court of Appeal was considering the appeal, a different question arose: whether the trial court had jurisdiction at all. The court obtained supplemental briefs and decided the case on that ground.
The court explained that an employer must apply for an order on its lien before satisfaction of judgment or dismissal of the action, and SCPMG did not. The dismissal terminated the action and took away the trial court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction, apart from narrow exceptions such as costs and statutory attorney fees, none of which applied. The consequence was direct:
“An order issued after a court loses jurisdiction is void.”
Is a subject matter jurisdiction argument forfeited if it was not raised in the trial court?
SCPMG argued the Slamers forfeited their timing argument because their opposition did not say the settlement had already been executed and paid out. The court disagreed. Any factual dispute about whether the money had been disbursed did not matter, because no one disputed that the whole action was dismissed before SCPMG filed its motion. The Slamers' argument was “a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court and may be raised for the first time on appeal.” In the court's words, “There was no forfeiture.”
The court also rejected the argument that the Slamers had agreed to let the trial court keep jurisdiction. Quoting earlier authority, it explained that “subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel, the court cannot ‘retain’ jurisdiction it has lost.”
Does Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 keep jurisdiction alive?
Not here, for several reasons. The current subdivision (f)(1), which allows a motion to determine a lien, did not become operative until January 1, 2025, does not apply retroactively, and covers dismissals without prejudice, not with prejudice. Under the version in effect in 2023, as the court applied it through Wackeen v. Malis, a request to retain jurisdiction had to be made while the case was pending, and it had to “be express, not implied from other language,” and “be clear and unambiguous.” The court reviewed the April 2023 courtroom colloquies and an entry in the minutes of a May 19, 2023 hearing, and found no such request. And because SCPMG had been dismissed from the case in April 2022, it was no longer a party. Section 664.6, the court said, “may be used only by a party to the settlement.”
SCPMG's last argument, based on the Enforcement of Judgments Law, failed because a lien must first be allowed by court order, and that order did not issue until long after the action was no longer pending.
The record ruling
SCPMG also moved to augment the record. The court granted the motion only for documents filed or hearings held in this action, denied it for materials from related coordinated cases, and denied judicial notice of prior versions of section 664.6 and related legislative materials because they were not necessary, helpful or relevant. Postdismissal statements made at a status conference in the related cases were outside the record, and in any event a request to retain jurisdiction must be made before the case is dismissed in its entirety.
What the court decided
The order was reversed, and the case was “remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a new order denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction.” Because jurisdiction decided the appeal, the court did not reach comparative fault, fees or interest, and it expressed no opinion on what remedies, if any, SCPMG may still pursue.
For more on when issues are lost on appeal, see our note on forfeiture after a summary judgment opposition, and our appeals and writs practice.
Key takeaways
- After a voluntary dismissal of the entire action with prejudice, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to act further except for limited matters such as costs and statutory fees.
- An order entered after the court loses jurisdiction is void, and the Court of Appeal reversed with directions to deny the reimbursement motion for lack of jurisdiction.
- A challenge to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal, so the forfeiture argument failed.
- A request that the court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 must be made before dismissal, and must be express, clear and unambiguous.
- A party already dismissed from the case could not use section 664.6, which is limited to parties to the settlement.
Why appeals like this one need an appellate lawyer
The events that decided Slamer happened long before the appeal. The window for SCPMG to apply for its lien closed when the action was dismissed on June 1, 2023. The chance to have the court keep jurisdiction under section 664.6 depended on an express request made before that date. The motion came more than eight months later, and the order, entered more than 22 months after the dismissal, was void. SCPMG argued the plaintiffs forfeited their timing point by not making it in their opposition. The point decided the appeal anyway, after the jurisdiction question arose on appeal and the court obtained supplemental briefing.
That is the work an appellate lawyer does: identifying which events end a court's power to act, putting the right request on the record before a dismissal is filed, knowing which arguments survive even when they were missed below, and building a record limited to what an appellate court will consider. If a settlement, dismissal or lien dispute is in play, talk to an appellate lawyer early, before a dismissal is filed or a deadline runs.
What this post is not. This post is attorney advertising and general information about a court decision. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts and record, and appellate deadlines are short and often jurisdictional — talk to appellate counsel about your case promptly.
Facing a ruling you may need to appeal or challenge by writ? Yisrael Gelb · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864