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We discussed Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1), in our October 17, 2020 post, which was unpublished at the time.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 On September 29, 2020, we posted on the unpublished decision of Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn.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
The Reason—A Prejudgment Interest Award Of $2,600 Beat The Defense CCP § 998 Offer; Yes, It Was That Close—With Around $335,000 In Fees/Costs Being The Burden At The End. The Song-Beverly Act (better known as California’s lemon law) has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision; however, it is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section
Section 998 Cost-Shifting Did Not Preempt Labor Code Cost-Shifting Provisions So As To Allow Fee and Costs Recovery To Certain Defendants. Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 15, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision discussing the intersection of Labor Code costs shifting and CCP § 998
Case Shows How Litigants Should Structure 998 Offers So As To Escape Enforcement Challenges. We commend practitioners to read Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Ins. Co., Case No. C085749 (3d Dist. Sept. 29, 2020) (unpublished) when it comes to structuring an effective CCP § 998 pretrial settlement offer in several respects.
Case Reminds Practitioners To Allow For Acceptance By Each Defendant. CCP § 998 is a “stick and carrot” statute designed to encourage settlements. However, it does have some procedural requirements which are mandatory in nature. Burchell v. Faculty Physicians & Surgeons of The Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Case No. E071146 (4th Dist.,
Precise Language In 998 Offer Is Needed To Limit Its Scope—Otherwise, Beware Because You Will Not Get Fee Shifting. Appellate courts do not like broad, uncalibrated 998 offers. Kennedy v. City of Fresno, Case Nos. F077029/F077585 (5th Dist. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished) illustrates this principle well, as we discuss below. There, City of
Award Of Expert Fees To Plaintiffs Reversed, Because Offer Failed To Allocate Out For Each Defendant. Reynolds v. Pope, Case No. A155406 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 28, 2020) (unpublished) is a factually interesting case where a professional baseball player and his wife sued a neighbor defendant who invited some friends to his parents’
Insurance Policy Did Not Preclude Recovery Of Costs Under Sections 998 Or 1293.2 And Strictly Limited Arbitrator’s Authority To Decide Only Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Damages And The Amount Thereof. In Storm v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co., Case No. B299277 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2020) (published), plaintiff and defendant insurance company
There Was No Reasonable Dispute That Defendant Had Accepted And Agreed To Be Bound By The Terms Of The Offer. In Newman v. Larios, Case No. G057542 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 22, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff sued two defendants for personal injuries he sustained when his motorcycle was struck by cars driven by
