Cases: Section 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 Sept. 29, 2020) (unpublished) when it comes to structuring an effective CCP § 998 pretrial settlement offer in several respects.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 Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished) illustrates this principle well, as we discuss below.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             Reynolds v. Pope, Case No. A155406 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 28, 2020) (unpublished) is a factually interesting case where a professional baseball player and his wife sued a neighbor defendant who invited some friends to his parents’

Costs, Section 998, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Gets Second Chance At Arbitration And Post-Arbitration Costs Where Trial Court Erroneously Interpreted That The Parties’ Insurance Agreement Precluded The Award Of Arbitration Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Section 998: 4/3 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Conclusion That Plaintiff’s Section 998 Offer Was Validly Accepted Despite Being Signed By Defendant’s Counsel Instead Of Defendant

Cases: Section 998

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

Costs, Experts, Insurance, Section 998: Denial Of All But $11,753.94 Of Prevailing Personal Injury Plaintiff’s $83,048.06 Costs Request Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

An Invalid Section 998 Offer And A Failure To Reserve The Right To Seek Prevailing Party Fees In Agreements To Split Costs Sealed Plaintiff’s Fate.             In Anthony v. Li, Case No. A156640 (1st Dist., Div. 3 April 13, 2020) (published), a prevailing personal injury plaintiff, to whom a jury awarded $650,235.00 in damages

Section 998: 998 Offer Requesting Release Of All Claims In Above-Captioned Civil Action And Release Of Affiliate Nonparties Did Not Render It Invalid

Cases: Section 998

$35,240.80 Costs Shifting Award Affirmed On Appeal.             In Kaplan v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc., Case Nos. B296107/B297898 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2020) (unpublished), defendant did serve a “successful” CCP § 998 offer to plaintiff, given a defense verdict.  The trial judge awarded costs of $35,240.80 against plaintiff, prompting an appeal on the

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717: Trial Court Order Denying All Attorney’s Fees And Costs To Defendants Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Defendants Will Be Entitled To Substantial Fees/Costs On Remand, Not To Mention An Attempt To Garner Even More Fees.             This next case is a very substantial reverse of fortune on appeal.  So, that takes us to posting on Abregov v. Lawrence, Case No. G056866 (Abregov II) (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 19, 2020) (unpublished).

Costs, Section 998: Most Of $137,559.43 Costs Award To Successful Defendant Property Manager Affirmed On Appeal As Against Unsuccessful Plaintiff Tenants

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Property Manager’s 998 Offers Were Not Token, Although Some Expert Fees, Exhibits Not Used At Trial, And Attorney Lodging Costs Had To Be Excluded Or Revisited.             Lewis v. RDM Mgt., Inc., Case No. B280728 (2d Dist., Div. 7 March 2, 2020) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff tenants in a 23-unit apartment obtained a

Scroll to Top