Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

In California...

I asked this question earlier, but I wasn't clear enough (as answers noted). So (regarding express reservations vs. the terms of the settlement as a whole):

In an unlawful detainer settlement (includes a general release and 1542 waive, both mutual - whether relevant to this question or not), the settlement states that the matter, and all things plead, has been fully litigated and determined. However,

Question: can a party expressly reserve any/all claims for which the settlement itself deems are fully resolved by the settlement? For example, if the plaintiff was suing the defendant for damages, but ultimately the plaintiff had to pay the defendant instead, can the plaintiff reserve the right to those damages despite those damage claims having already been plead and the contract saying they're resolved (the very foundation of/reason for the settlement)? Which takes precedence, the reservation or the terms of the settlement?

I do have a related question, but I'll ask it separately so as not to confuse things.

Thank you!!!

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California

Looking for something else?