Cases: Section 998

Section 998: 4/1 DCA, Relying On Its Zavala Decision Under Review By The California Supreme Court, Reverses A Lower Court’s Failure To Independently Evaluate Whether A Lump-Sum § 998 Offer Served To Shift Costs And Fees In A Lemon Law Suit

Cases: Section 998

The Result Was That Car Manufacturer’s Request For Costs Had To Be Revisited And The $200,000 Fee Award To Plaintiffs Had To Be Reevaluated.                In Zavala v. Hyundai Motor America, 107 Cal.App.5th 458, 463 (2024), rev. granted, No. S289000 (March 19, 2025), the 4/1 DCA concluded that CCP § 998 offers may include simultaneous, […]

POOF!, Section 998: Make Sure Your 998 Offers Are Not Ambiguous And Only Targeted For Claim In the Lawsuit, With The Defense Losing A $231,458.30 Award On The Offer

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

If You Include Language Like “Or Could Have Been Brought,” This Might Well Be Invalidating For An Offer—Drafting Tip to All!                Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc., Case No. B337902 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is an excellent reminder of how to structure CCP § 998 offers with releases

Request For Admissions, Section 998: Prevailing Defendants Entitled To $108,000 In Costs-Shifting Under Section 998 And $39,140 For RFA Unreasonable Denials

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Opinion Shows How Substantial Expenses Can Be Shifted.                Doe v. Accor Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Case No. A167247 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2025) (unpublished, posted on July 22, 2025) was where a prevailing defendant group won $108,000 based on a successful CCP § 998 offer and $39,140 (out of a

Section 998: Defendants Held Jointly And Severally Liable Did Not Beat Jury Verdict So As To Escape Costs Under Section 998

Cases: Section 998

No Non-Economic Damages Were Sought In Vehicle Property Injury Case, So Appealing Defendants Did Not Fashion A Successful 998 Offer.                Defendants were held jointly and severally liable in a vehicle property injury matter where plaintiff recovered a $204,528 jury verdict damages award as against them and others, based on damages to plaintiff’s truck and

Section 998: Cross-Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Invalid, So It Did Not Dilute Recovery By Defendant/Cross-Complainant On Other Defense Claims

Cases: Section 998

Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach.                In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute between a plaintiff subcontractor and a defendant general contractor, with general contractor bringing a cross-complaint

Section 998: Rejected Defense Offer Of $15,000, Where Plaintiff Recovered Nothing, Justified Award Of Defense Costs Request In An Unruh Act Case

Cases: Section 998

Defense Was Awarded $67,313.97 Under § 998, Applicable To Unruh Act Claims.                In Hughes v. Target Corp., Case No. H050996 et al. (6th Dist. Apr. 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an Unruh Act claim against defendant based on an altercation with Target’s security guard.  She lost.  Earlier, she had rejected a $15,000 CCP §

Cases Under Review, Section 998: California Supreme Court Decides That CCP § 998 Costs-Shifting Applies To Pre-Trial Settlements

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Section 998

. . . Although The Parties Are Free To Allocate Costs Differently Under Their Settlement.                The California Supreme Court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. S280598 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2025) (published) decided that CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just judgments or arbitration awards, for

Section 998: Seven Months Into Litigation, Med Mal Plaintiff Rejecting Section 998 Offer Properly Saddled With Costs-Shifting, Including Expert Witness Fees

Cases: Section 998

Acceptance Line With Request For Dismissal Was No Defect, With The Offer Made In Good Faith Based On Informative Litigation Activities.                In Standage v. Bruno, Case No. A165207 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2025) (unpublished), med mal plaintiff lost a case after the jury returned a defense verdict after less than two hours

Scroll to Top