Cases: Section 998

Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717: Host Of Section 1717 And 998 Issues Are Considered In Attorney’s Fees Dueling Requests

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

Equitable Claims Can Be “On The Contract,” Parties Losing On Their Complaint And Cross-Complaint Meant That Neither Side Prevailed; One Litigant Beat 998 Offer Based On Non-Monetary Value And The Fact That The Composite Joint Nature Of Offer Had To Be Considered, But Matter Had To Be Remanded For Prevailing Party Determination Based On An […]

Arbitration, Section 998: California Supreme Court Announces Bright-Line Rule For Presentation of Rejected CCP § 998 Offers To Arbitrators—Within 15 Days After Issuance Of Final Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 998

However, Arbitrator Still Has Wide-Ranging Discretion To Allow Costs-Shifting Or Not.             The California Supreme Court, in Heimlich v. Shivji, Case No. S243029 (Cal. Supreme Court May 30, 2019), in a 7-0 opinion authored by Justice Corrigan, established a bright-line rule for presentation of a rejected CCP § 998 offer to an arbitrator for fee/cost-shifting

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 998: Parking Lot Operator Entitled To Attorney’s Fees From Losing Lessee, But Whether Expert Witness Fees Allowed Had To Be Determined On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 998

Trial Court Erroneously Allowed Them Under CCP § 998, But Parking Lot Contract Clause Needed To Be Restudied On Remand To See If Operator Obtains Expert Witness Fees.             In PCAM, LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of California, Inc., Case No, B277637/B285308 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), parking lot owner, operator, and

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $101,848.75 Fees/Costs Award Under Lemon Law Statute Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Underlying Settlement Amount Was $40,197.88.             We have many times posted that attorney’s fees/costs can easily eclipse the underlying merits determination.   Here we have a case demonstrating that exact result in a car “lemon law” case.             In Muro v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. B285747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff

Section 998: California Supreme Court Rules Request For Costs Timely Under Section 998 If Filed With The Arbitrator Within 15 Days Of Final Award

Cases: Section 998

A Question Of Timing: Case Explains  How To Handle Costs Under Section 998 In An Arbitration.         Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029 (Cal. S.Ct.  5/30/19) (Corrigan, J.) is good news for practitioners, because it settles a timing issue, but it is no help to the hapless appellant who helped make law. Code of Civil Procedure

Section 998: Client’s “Waiver Of Costs” CCP § 998 Offer Was Enforceable Where Client Defenses To Law Firm Fee Collection Disputes Were Revealed And Where Firm Voluntarily Dismissed The Case Many Months After Not Accepting The Offer

Cases: Section 998

Expert Fees Of $21,377.08 Were Assessed Against Law Firm Under 998 Cost-Shifting Feature.             In Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC, Case No. C080930 (3d Dist. May 8, 2019) (unpublished), client disputed a law firm’s contention it was owed for unpaid legal fees based upon a conflict of interest and

Civil Rights, Section 998: FEHA Amended To Provide That CCP § 998 Fee/Costs Shifting In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant Will Not Happen Unless Plaintiff’s Action Was Frivolous

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 998

Legislative Enactment Resolved Split Among DCAs, As Recognized In Huerta, Effective January 1, 2019.             Although alluding to it in some posts on a year-end 2018 case, we post to indicate that California Senate Bill 1300 amended the FEHA scheme to provide that CCP § 998 offers may not be used to shift recovery of

Arbitration, Section 998: 2/2 DCA Affirms Denial Of All But $60 Post-Confirmation Award Filing Cost To Prevailing Arbitration Claimant

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 998

Rejected CCP § 998 Offer Did Not Change The Result, Because Claimant Did Not Ask Arbitrator To Cost Shift And Failed To Show Contractual Expenses Were Post-Offer In Nature.             In Lipton & Margolin, APC v. Ko, Case No. B288038 (2d Dist., Div. 2 February 7, 2019) (unpublished), former law firm sued client for $39,455.45

Landlord/Tenant, Section 998, POOF!: Landlord And Tenant, In Lengthy Litigation Over Personal Property In A Westlake Village Luxury Home, Lose Both Their Attorney’s Fees Awards On Appeal

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

After Ten Years Of Litigation, Tenant Only Received A $56,000 Net Recovery—Not Exactly A Win When All Of The Attorney Efforts Are Considered!             Christie v. Ridge, Case No. B259189 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 6, 2019) (unpublished), although unpublished, is a nice reminder of how costly litigation is and how both litigants winning attorney’s

Scroll to Top