Cases: Section 998

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             In Thiry v. Pet Partners, Inc., Case No. E070851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a mixed FEHA/whistleblower/UCF suit based on allegations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

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

Scroll to Top