Inevitably, enforcement efforts do not always go smoothly. In late 2017, the Appeal`s First Area Court cited section 664.6, which reads: “At the request of the parties, the court may retain the parties` jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until the terms of the agreement are fully met.” (Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960.) In accordance with the terms of their written and signed settlement agreement, the parties to Sayta have indicated their intention and agreement that the court of justice shall remain competent to enforce the agreement if a party fails to comply with the terms. Unfortunately, neither the lawyer nor the parties actually filed such a request with the Higher Court and only destroyed their intentions in the written agreement. At their request, the case was then voluntarily dismissed.