Cases: Section 998

Construction, Section 998: Defendant Pipe Supplier In Condo Construction Defect Suit Properly Denied HOA Section 998 Offer Of $325,000 As Too Token Given $22.7 Million Costs Of Repair For Defendant’s Scope Of Work

Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 998

HOA Sought To Recoup $298,178.69 In Costs, Including $176,870.54 In Expert Witness Fees.             In Acqua Vista Homeowners Assn. v. MWI, Inc., Case No. D073666 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 9, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff homeowners association sued developer defendants as well as pipe supplier defendant MWI in a construction defect suit under the Right to […]

Landlord/Tenant, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute: In Two Related Opinions, 1/2 DCA Explores San Francisco Eviction Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision, Determining Owners Were Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Against Two Tenants

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In One Case, Section 998 Offer Was Not Beat Even Though Two Plaintiff Tenants Did Get Positive Damages Under The San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization And Arbitration Ordinance.             The 1/2 DCA in two opinions, Pitre v. Lam and Wong, Case No. A151061 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 7, 2019) (unpublished) and Randt v. Lam,

Civil Rights, Section 998: 4/1 DCA Decides That Nonfrivolous FEHA Actions Cannot Give Rise To Routine Cost Recovery Even Though A CCP § 998 Offer Was Rejected

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 998

Legislature’s 2019 Amendment In Government Code Section 12965(b) Was To Be Retroactively Applied.             Effective January 1, 2019, the California Legislature amended Government Code section 12965(b) to resolve a split between two decisions, Sviridov and Arave [both of which were discussed in posts under our categories “Civil Rights” and “Section 998”], about whether CCP §

Section 998: Defense CCP § 998 Offer Was Too Uncertain Where It Referenced An Undisclosed Settlement Agreement With Releases To Plaintiff Offeror

Cases: Section 998

Offeree, Although Might Prudently Ask For Clarification, Is Under No Legal Obligation To Ask For Clarification Of Section 998 Offer.             The defense in an automobile personal injury accident case involving two plaintiffs made a CCP § 998 offer to the more severely injured plaintiff which was conditioned upon “the execution and transmittal of a

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717: In A 2-1 Split Decision, 2/5 DCA Affirms $28,000 Contractual Fee Award To Prevailing Tenants Based On An Entered CCP § 998 Judgment And On Residential Lease Fee Provisions

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Majority And Dissenting Justice Disagreed On The Meaning Of A $500 Fee Cap Provision When Another Provision Discussed Additional Fees Being Within Play.             We know from 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, 240 Cal.App.4th 44, 48 (2015) [discussed in our October 10, 2015 post] that courts will honor a contractual “cap” of fees

Civil Rights, Costs, Employment, Section 998: Where Thrust Of Losing Plaintiff’s Suit Was A FEHA Claim, Trial Court Properly Refused To Award CCP § 998 Costs To Winning Defendant Despite Loss On Non-FEHA Whistleblower Claim

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Prominence Of Suit Prevailed, Plus Appellate Court Offers Tips On What Trial Courts Ought To Follow When There Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thought On An Issue.             In Thiry v. Pet Partners, Inc., Case No. E070851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a mixed FEHA/whistleblower/UCF suit based on allegations

Arbitration, Section 998: $1,036,773.68 Fees/Costs Award To Losing Arbitration Claimant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 998

Arbitrator’s Consideration of 998 Offer After Close Of Evidence Did Not Alter The Result.             In Hartzler v. 110 Management, Inc., Case No. B290134 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 12, 2019) (unpublished), property manager of Amy Lee Hartzler, who co-founded the rock band Evanescence, sued for alleged unpaid commissions under a management agreement with a

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

Scroll to Top