Cases: Section 998

Section 998: Failure to Provide Acceptance Line In 998 Offer, Even Though Offer Was Accepted Through Handwritten Acceptance, Invalidated The 998 Offer And Resulting Judgment

Cases: Section 998

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

Celebrities, Section 998: Voluntary Dismissal Of Likeness Claim Does Not Mandate Fee Recovery; Second Settlement Offer, After Unaccepted Earlier 998 Offer, On A Narrower Claim Superseded Prior One Such That Contractual Fee-Shifting Was In Order

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Section 998

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

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Plaintiff Only Suing For Injunctive Relief And Not Proving Damage Liability Under CLRA, Where Accepted 998 Offer Was Silent On Liability, Fees, And Costs, Did Not Give Rise to Fee Recovery

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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,

Section 998: CalTrans’ Pretrial CCP § 998 Offer To Losing Motor Vehicle Plaintiff Based On Design Immunity Was Valid And Reasonable

Cases: Section 998

$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,

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $83,000 Fee Award Affirmed To Lemon Law Plaintiffs Because, As Far As Fee Recovery, Post-Offer Conduct Activities Can Give Rise To Lemon Law Further Fee Recovery

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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

Employment, Section 998: 998 Offer During Arbitration Did Not Allow Arbitrator To Determine There Was A Prevailing Party, Just Reasonable Fees/Costs Under Wage/Hour Statutes

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

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

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. Is Now A Published Decision

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

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

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $278,057 Lemon Law Fee Award And $56,882.89 Costs Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Plaintiff Employee, In Unlimited Civil Case, Winning Limited Jurisdiction Damages Properly Awarded Wage/Hour And Break Claim Intertwined Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

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

Scroll to Top