Typo In 998 Offer Not Material; Pecuniary Interest Disqualified Attorney From Fees. On April 27, 2017, we posted on Gillotti v. Stewart, a then unpublished Third District decision which found immaterial typo in a CCP § 998 offer and also disqualified fees for an attorney with a pecuniary interest in the […]
Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished): Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery. In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999
Also, Offer Was Valid For Proposing Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Action With Prejudice. In Mauzey v. Morschauser, Case Nos. D070681/D070683 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge found a CCP § 998 offer invalid because it was not signed or authorized by offeree’s counsel (apparently counsel’s secretary had signed) and
Defense Ignoring Of Offer And Equitable Estoppel Defense Did Not Prevail. Plaintiff’s CCP § 998 offer was found to be invalid by both the lower and appellate courts in Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc., Case No. D063556 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 6, 2017) (partially published; 998 discussion published) based on the failure
Defense Only Said Our Fees Are Only One Third Of The Request, With Trial Court Not Crediting That Retort. In Crowdflower, Inc. v. Asher Insights, Inc., Case No. A143235 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 29, 2016) (unpublished), new office building owner served a CCP § 998 offer in a contentious lease/retaliation dispute with
$10,245 Expert Fee Costs Award To One Defendant Reversed, With Appellate Court Noting Split In Intermediate Appellate Thinking But Following Persson and Kahn Over Winston Square Reasoning. Ebert v. Press, Case No. D069615 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 21, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where two defendants put forward a joint and several
Court Reporter Costs Were Fine And 998 Offer Was Reasonable, With Losing Plaintiff Failing To Show Abuse Of Discretion In Costs Imposition Award. Seafood vendors, Washington, D.C. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. 2010. Library of Congress. In Anderson v. Seafood City, Case No. B263925 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 13, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff
Made No Difference That Defense Affirmatively Rejected Rather Than Ignored The Offer. In a very complicated case involving the Polar Care 500 cold therapy device, the 4/1 DCA in Bigler-Engle v. Breg, Inc., Case No. D063556 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 28, 2016) (partially published; 998 discussion not published) did have occasion to
Joint Offer Could Be Assessed, Plus 998 Offer Condition Of Verifying Existence of Insurance Limits Did Not Void The Offer. In Markow v. Rosner, Case Nos. B260715/B262530 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 4, 2016) (published), husband and wife won an eventual medical malpractice/loss of consortium action against doctor and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to
Article Is In September 2016 Edition. In the September 2016 edition of The Orange County Lawyer, Joshua G. Simon has authored an article entitled “Minding the Statutory Offer to Compromise: A Review of Basic Mechanics, Recent Developments, and Common Misconceptions.” Here is a summary of some highlights we picked up from Mr. Simon’s
