Moral Of The Story Is To Craft Our 998 Offers Carefully As Far As Wording. We will tell you that Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers, as far as substance, are usually subject to contract interpretation principles. Although it comes from Rhode Island, we will share with you some insights from a decision […]
$4,613.61 Costs Hit, After Adjustment For Damages Award, Was The Net Result. In Neff v. Anderson, Case No. B306263 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 24, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs challenged a $4,613.61 costs award based on a CCP § 998 offer by defendant RE/MAX. The underlying case concerned damages to plaintiffs’ personal property which was
First Impression Case Paid Heed To The Statutory Language Mandating An Acceptance Line. In facing a first impression issue, the 2/4 DCA in Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC, Case No B302344 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 3, 2021) (published) decided that a section 998 offer lacking an acceptance line, although accepted
Second 998 Offer Limited To Contractual Claim Extinguished Prior 998 Offer Which Was Broader. Our Santa Ana Court of Appeal, in Varney Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Avon Plastics, Inc., Case No. G058903 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 23, 2021) (published), got to entertain some interesting fee issues under the California’s commercial name/likeness statute and
Case Is A Real Attention Getter With Respect to Acceptance Of 998 Offers Which Are Carefully Drafted. We like this next case because if offers practitioners on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to carefully craft and accept CCP § 998 offer in certain consumer-oriented areas of the law. Mikki v. Lifemark Group,
$24.516.05 In Expert Witness Fees Awarded By Lower Court Was No Abuse Of Discretion, Although The Dissent In A 2-1 Decision Would Have Reversed The Design Immunity Summary Judgment Ruling. Menges v. Dept. of Transportation, Case Nos. G057643/G058148 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 24, 2020) (published) involved a plaintiff, through a guardian ad litem,
Section 998 Activity Is A Gestalt As Far As Fee Recovery Under The Song-Beverly Act. Although unpublished, Regueiro v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B301772 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 19, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting case which involved the intersection between the lemon law fee-shifting provision and CCP § 998 offer provision. In
Arbitrator’s “Prevailing Party” Determination Properly Corrected By Superior Court. In Geiger v. Floyd’s 99-California, LLC, Case No. G056747 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 18, 2020) (unpublished), employee sued for wage/hour violations, with the individual claims ordered to arbitration. The employer served a CCP § 998 offer offering to settle those claims for $10,000, with
Labor Code Cost-Shifting Provisions Trumped Code of Civil Procedure Section 998’s Cost-Shifting And Meant No Fees/Costs Recovery For Successful Section 998 Defendants. We discussed Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1), in our October 17, 2020 post, which was unpublished at the time. In Cruz, defendants
Opinion Has A Nice Discussion On How To Structure An Effective 998 Offer. On September 29, 2020, we posted on the unpublished decision of Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm General Insurance, Case No. C085749. It had a nice discussion on how to structure a valid CCP § 998 offer as far
