Court Itself Calls For Legislature To Clarify How The Pre/Post-Offer Mechanism Operates—Likely, A Good Thing, If It Happens! Our local Santa Ana Court of Appeal, in a very thoughtful opinion authored by Justice Ikola, has taken on a vexing issue—how pre-offer/post-offer fees/costs get allocated in CCP § 998 offers for purposes of future proceedings […]
Substantial Costs Awards Are Becoming More Prevalent In Corporate Defendant Type Situations. In several recent posts in the last few months, we have noted a trend for personal injury or consumer plaintiffs to suffer adverse costs awards of a substantial nature. This, of course, counsels that CCP § 998 offers must be carefully assessed
Case Holds That Unallocated 998 Offer to Multiple Plaintiffs in Hybrid Wrongful Death, Strict Liability, And Negligence Action Was Invalid. On August 24, 2018, we posted on Williams v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, Case No. A146060 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 23, 2018), a hybrid wrongful death, strict liability, and negligence action
$20,000 Offer Plus Waiver Of Costs Was Found To Be In Good Faith. Gonggryp v. BMW of No. America, LLC, Case No. B279895 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 14, 2018) (unpublished) is a stark reminder for attorneys representing clients in personal injury cases that they must seriously evaluate CCP § 998 pre-trial settlement offers,
998 Offer Would Have Been Fine In Wrongful Death Action Alone, But Separate Offers Had To Be Served In This Particular Survival Claim Action. Although the CCP § 998 discussion is unpublished, Williams v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, Case No. A146060 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 23, 2018) (partially
On Remand, Financial Condition Of Rejecting Offeree Can Be Considered In The Costs-Shifting Proceeding. LAOSD Asbestos Cases (Alfaro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.), Case No. B281022 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 8, 2018) (published) involved the results of a costs-shifting proceeding in a case where a plaintiff lost her tort case in which she alleged developing
Result Was That Expert Witness Costs Award Of $60,023.90 Went POOF! In Miller v. Fleming, Case No. A150554 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 3, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff sued two defendants mainly for breach of fiduciary duty based on an oral partnership joint venture opportunity. Plaintiff eventually won $3.7 million in compensatory damages from a
We Think Panel Erred On The Trial Judge Lacking Jurisdiction To Entertain Fee Motion. In Swinerton Builders v. Fresno Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Case No. F069825 (5th Dist. July 31, 2018) (unpublished), a general contractor won an indemnity dispute against a plumbing contractor under a subcontract with an indemnification/fees clause. The jury entered a
Result Was Affirmance Of $38,000 Fees Award On One Of Three Cases, But Affirming The Denial Of The Remaining $165,000 Total Request Based On Topical Analysis Above. Contreras v. Silla America, Inc., Case No. B283118 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a trial judge decided that an overall
Vacation Pay Award Totaled $28,500, With Prevailing Plaintiff Winning Subsequent Fees Of $495,549.75 And Costs Of $84,035.40. Curran v. Schools of the Sacred Heart-San Francisco, Case Nos. A142615/A143646 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 5, 2018) (unpublished) was a case where plaintiff, dean of students at defendant, did not have her contract extended after 37
