Cases: Section 998

Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Berkeley Municipal Ordinance “Reasonable Fee” Requirement Disposed Of Winning Cross-Appellant’s Fee Challenge

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CCP § 998 Does Not Expand Fee Allowance, But Only Expands Group Of Litigants Treated As Prevailing Parties.             Glaser v. Mitchel, Case No. A155815 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 7, 2019) (unpublished) was a neighborhood dispute over sunlight/tree disputes—something we have posted on many times before with respect to various California venues.  There was […]

Costs, Experts, Section 998: Sixth District Affirms Denial Of $26,950.50 In Expert Witness Fees To Prevailing Defendant Because Section 998 Offer Was Not Apportioned Among Plaintiffs

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

Defendant’s Treatment Of Mother And Son Plaintiffs As Spouses For Section 998 Purposes Did Not Fly.             In Roe v. Hollister School Dist., Case No. H043658 (6th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished), mother and son plaintiffs (Jane and Jonnie Roe) sued school district and others for an incident involving the five-year-old son and another six-year-old

Section 998: Rejecting Offeree Which Rejects First And Second CCP § 998 Offers Is Entitled To Addition Of Pre-Offer Fees/Costs Up Through Date Of Second Offer To The Base Judgment

Cases: Section 998

Any Other Conclusion Would Run Afoul Of Section 998’s Purpose To Encourage Settlement.             Hersey v. Vopava, Case No. B287896 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 14, 2019) (published) involved a situation where a plaintiff tenant who vacated an apartment sued for inhabitability issues.  Defendant landlord made two CCP § 998 offers, one for $10,000 and

Section 998: When Offeree Beats First Offer, Court Refuses To Freeze Offeree’s Costs At Time Of First Offer When Offeror Makes Second Offer

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 998

Court Could Not Find Case On Point,  So It Was Guided By Statutory Purpose Of Section 998.         In Hersey v. Vopava, B287896 (2nd Dist. Div. 8 Aug. 14, 2019) (Stratton, Grimes, Wiley), the Court holds, "where an offeree achieves a judgment more favorable than a first offer, the determination of whether an offeree obtained

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

Scroll to Top