{"id":287,"date":"2026-02-17T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-17T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=287"},"modified":"2026-02-17T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T12:00:00","slug":"hatlevig-v-gm-d084360-attorney-fees-motion-deadline-rule-3-1702","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=287","title":{"rendered":"Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC \u2014 Motion for Attorney Fees Untimely When Filed and Served More Than 180 Days After Court-Ordered Dismissal Took Effect"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-17<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D084360<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Attorney Fees, California Rules of Court rule 3.1702, Song-Beverly Settlement, Dismissal Deadlines, Court-Ordered Dismissal<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Matthew Hatlevig sued General Motors LLC under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act over alleged defects in his 2017 vehicle. The parties settled in mid-2023 \u2014 Hatlevig surrendered the vehicle and agreed to dismiss the action; GM agreed to pay $100,000 plus attorney fees as determined by the trial court on noticed motion. After Hatlevig’s counsel notified the court of the settlement at a June 2023 readiness conference, the court took matters off calendar and ordered a dismissal filed within 45 days.<\/p>\n

The clerk issued a ‘Notice of Dismissal by Court’ stating the case would be deemed dismissed on August 15, 2023 unless a judgment or dismissal was filed or good cause shown. Neither happened. On August 31, 2023, Hatlevig filed his motion for attorney fees, but did not serve it on GM until April 4, 2024. The trial court denied the motion as untimely under California Rules of Court rule 3.1702. Hatlevig appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. Rule 3.1702(b)(1) requires a motion for fees incurred up to the time of judgment to be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 \u2014 generally, 180 days from entry of judgment. The court held the August 15, 2023 date specified in the clerk’s ‘Notice of Dismissal by Court’ marked the operative dismissal date for purposes of the 180-day clock, even though the parties had not formally filed a dismissal as the court had ordered.<\/p>\n

Even giving Hatlevig the full 180 days from August 15, 2023, the motion was not served on GM until well past the deadline. Hatlevig’s argument that the deadline never began to run because no formal judgment or dismissal was entered would, the court explained, allow plaintiffs to extend the fee-motion deadline indefinitely by violating court orders to file dismissals. The court rejected that result.<\/p>\n

The court also noted that a later June 2024 minute order formally dismissing the case did not retroactively cure the untimeliness because the dismissal had been effective by court operation as of August 15, 2023.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n