Cases: Section 998

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717, Section 998: Overall Prevailing Party Not Entitled To Atty’s Fees On Contractual Claim Dismissed During Closing Argument, On Noncontractual Claims Under Narrow Fees Clause, Nor § 998 As Gen. Litigation Expenses

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

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             Contreras v. Silla America, Inc., Case No. B283118 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a trial judge decided that an overall […]

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Trial Judge Correctly Awarded Substantial Fees And Costs On Labor Code Vacation Pay Claim, In 2-1 Appellate Decision

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

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 A142615/A143646 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 5, 2018) (unpublished) was a case where plaintiff, dean of students at defendant, did not have her contract extended after 37

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Defense Served A Proper 998 Offer With Valid Terms For Settlement Under The Song-Beverly Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Defense Agreed To Pay $7,500 For Plaintiff’s Fees And Costs Or, Alternatively, An Amount To Be Determined On Noticed Motion.          A valid CCP § 998 offer to compromise is a valid cost-shifting mechanism under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (commonly known as California’s “lemon law”). Kia Motors America, Inc. offered to pay plaintiff $30,000.01 plus

Section 998, Trade Secrets: 4/3 DCA Reverses Trial Judge’s Significant Taxing Of Costs-Shifting Under Rejected CCP § 998 Offer And Reverses Denial Of Fees Under Penal Code Section 502 Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Trade Secrets

Remand Was Order, But A Potential $575,000 To $994,000 In Expert And Attorney’s Fees Must Be Considered In “Re Do.”             Prince v. Invensure Ins. Brokers, Inc., Case Nos. G051996 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 18, 2018) (partially published; section 998 discussion published, with remaining fee discussion unpublished) is an insurance business merger

Costs, Section 998: Deposition Transcripts Ordered And Jury Fees Posted By Separate Defendants Are Awardable As Routine Costs.

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Expert Witness Fee Requests Did Not Have To Be Scaled Down Due To Plaintiff’s Financial Condition.             On the merits, Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, Case No. D071001 (May 11, 2018 partially published; costs discussion not published) is a wrenching decision on a patient’s health care directives conflicting with providers’ opinions that the

Costs, Section 998: Plaintiff Obtaining Judgment In Landscaping Dispute Did Not Favorably Obtain It For 998 Costs-Shifting Purposes

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Court-Ordered Mediation Costs Are Discretionary Costs Item For Award Purposes.              Hariri v. Clark, Case No. A149402 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 8, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting case showing how a CCP § 998 offer involving largely non-monetary features may not give rise to cost shifting based on the results actually obtained.              What happened

Class Action/Costs/Section 998:  CSU Student Class Representatives Properly Assessed With Some Mandatory Costs After Class Action Loss Under CCP § 998, But Denial Of Expert Witness Fees To Defense Was Proper Given The Differences In Damages Among Subcla

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

End Result Was Four Class Representatives Were Hit With Routine Costs Of $123,134.94.             Class action practitioners should read this next post on how CCP § 998 costs shifting can result in routine costs exposure to class representatives, especially where “pocketbook” financial evidence is not properly presented.             In Keller v. Bd. of Trustees, Cal.

Scroll to Top