Parties May Reserve Issue Of Prevailing Party In Settlement Agreement.

The parties to a litigation settled their dispute pursuant to a written settlement agreement, which stated: “This Settlement Sum is exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs. . . . [¶] [Plaintiff] shall apply to the Court by way of a motion for such attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the Action pursuant to California Civil Code section 3426.4, and for costs incurred in the Action pursuant to Memorandum of Costs under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, and Defendants reserve their right to oppose and tax same. No duplicate recovery will be allowed.” The settlement agreement noted that “the Parties understand and agree that nothing in this Settlement Agreement is intended, or should be construed as an admission of any liability, misconduct, or wrongdoing by any Party herein.” The parties further agreed that the Los Angeles Superior Court would retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement agreement. When plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs, the trial court struck it, and also denied plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. The appellate court reversed and remanded, stating: “Because we conclude that parties to a settlement agreement can validly specify that one party is potentially a prevailing party and reserve for later determination by the trial court whether that party did prevail, as well as other factual matters involved in making an award of statutory attorney fees, we reverse the trial court’s orders and remand the matter to the trial court to consider the motions.” Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; May 14, 2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 310.