Cases: Section 998

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             Although unpublished, Regueiro v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B301772 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 19, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting case which involved the intersection between the lemon law fee-shifting provision and CCP § 998 offer provision.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             In Geiger v. Floyd’s 99-California, LLC, Case No. G056747 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 18, 2020) (unpublished), employee sued for wage/hour violations, with the individual claims ordered to arbitration.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We discussed Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1), in our October 17, 2020 post, which was unpublished at the time.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

Section 998: Section 998 Offer Was Valid Because It Identified Accepting Party, Was Not Overbroad On Requested Releases, And Referenced An Attached Settlement Agreement

Cases: Section 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.

Section 998: 998 Offer To Defendants, Conjunctively, Was Invalid Where It Did Not Have Separate Acceptance Lines In The Offer

Cases: Section 998

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.,

Section 998: 998 Offer Extending To All Claims Was Too Uncertain To Shift Fees

Cases: Section 998

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

Section 998: Joint CCP § 998 Offer Made By Husband And Wife To Three Defendants, In Negligence Case Involving Comparative Negligence For Both Noneconomic and Economic Damages, Was Invalid

Cases: Section 998

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’

Scroll to Top