Reported / Citable
Background
Jennifer Slamer suffered disabling respiratory injuries in February 2016 while working for Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), from exposure to a disinfectant made by Ecolab, Inc. SCPMG settled her workers' compensation claim administratively. In May 2017, she and Christopher Slamer sued Ecolab, SCPMG, and related entities; SCPMG was dismissed with prejudice on April 11, 2022. SCPMG filed several notices of lien for the benefits it paid.
The Slamers tried the case against Ecolab and, before submission to the jury, settled confidentially on April 19, 2023. They voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice on June 1, 2023. After the Slamers refused reimbursement and mediation failed, SCPMG moved on February 16, 2024 to recoup its lien from the settlement proceeds. The Slamers opposed, arguing the lien should be reduced for SCPMG's comparative fault and a share of their fees and costs. On April 18, 2025, the trial court granted the motion, ordering reimbursement of the full lien plus interest. During the appeal, the Court of Appeal raised the question of the trial court's jurisdiction after dismissal and obtained supplemental briefs.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed. An employer seeking reimbursement from an employee's third-party recovery must apply for an order before the judgment is satisfied or the action is dismissed. SCPMG did not. The Slamers had a right to dismiss with prejudice before the case went to the jury, and the dismissal terminated the action and deprived the trial court of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, except for limited matters such as costs and statutory attorney fees. The reimbursement order was therefore void. Whether the settlement money had been disbursed was irrelevant.
The court rejected SCPMG's four counterarguments. The Slamers did not forfeit the point, because a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised first on appeal. Any assent to continued jurisdiction was ineffective, since parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent, and the newer lien-determination provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (f)(1), became operative only on January 1, 2025, is not retroactive, and addresses dismissals without prejudice. The record showed no express, clear, and unambiguous pre-dismissal request to retain jurisdiction under former section 664.6; the settlement agreement was not in the record, the April 19, 2023 colloquy and a vague May 19, 2023 minute entry fell short, and SCPMG, dismissed in 2022, was no longer a party able to invoke the statute. Finally, the Enforcement of Judgments Law did not help because Labor Code section 3862 enforcement requires a lien that has been allowed and perfected, and the order allowing the lien came only on April 18, 2025, after the action was no longer pending. The Slamers therefore needed no consent or court order to dismiss.
The order is reversed and the matter remanded with directions to enter a new order denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction; the Slamers recover their appellate costs. The court did not reach the Slamers' other challenges on comparative fault, fee allocation, and interest, and it expressed no opinion on what remedies, if any, SCPMG may pursue.
Key Takeaways
- A voluntary dismissal of an entire action with prejudice ends the trial court's jurisdiction to rule on a later motion to enforce a workers' compensation lien.
- An employer must obtain an order on its lien before the employee's third-party action is dismissed or the judgment is satisfied; filing notices of lien during the case did not preserve SCPMG's claim.
- A request to retain jurisdiction under former section 664.6 must be made while the case is pending and be express, clear, and unambiguous.
- Section 664.6 may be used only by a party to the settlement, not by a party previously dismissed from the case.
- The decision leaves open the proper amount of the lien and whether SCPMG has any other route to reimbursement.
Why It Matters
Slamer was first filed on September 28, 2026 without certification for publication and was certified for publication on October 21, 2026, so it is now citable precedent. It warns employers and lien claimants that lien notices filed during a third-party action do not protect reimbursement rights if the employee dismisses with prejudice before the employer secures an order allowing the lien.
The ruling is jurisdictional and narrow. It does not decide how comparative fault or fee sharing would affect the lien, and it applies the pre-2025 version of section 664.6 to 2023 events. Whether the amended statute changes outcomes for later settlements was not decided.