Court Of Appeal Reversed, But On A 2-1 Vote. In one of our likely last posts for 2017, we enter into the area of ethics as far as disqualification of an attorney in an action relating to a CCP § 998 offer. Miralda v. Heng Sheng, Inc., Case No B282158 (2d Dist., Div. […]
Plaintiff Was Not An “Aggrieved Employee” For PAGA Standing Purposes. In Kim v. Reins International California Inc,., Case No. B278642 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 29, 2017) (published), plaintiff alleging both individual and class action wage/hour violations (including a PAGA claim) accepted a CCP § 998 offer and dismissed his individual claims with prejudice. The
Defendants’ Alleged Indigent Status And Insurer Excess Liability Factors Were Inconsequential, And Technical Argument On 998 Acceptance Line Formatting Rejected. Although unpublished, Hackett v. Silva Trucking, Inc., Case No. C076745 (3d Dist. Nov. 22, 2017) (unpublished) is an interesting analysis of factors which were not properly considered when the defense rejected 998 offers in
$118,271.74 CCP § 998 Exposure Avoided By Losing Minor. K.F. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., Case Nos. B276410/B277982 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 9, 2017) (unpublished) reiterates lessons for crafting a successful CCP § 998 offer, especially how one must be careful in asking for narrow releases and waiver of claims to insure
Decision Held Section 998 Cost-Shifting Prevailed Over FEHA/POBRA Limitations. On July 28, 2017, we posted on Sviridov v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069785 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 28, 2017 unpublished). We now can report that this opinion was certified for publication on August 15, 2017. It decided that CCP § 998 cost
Policies Of Both FEHA Cost Shifting And 998 Cost Shifting To Be Considered By Trial Courts, But 998 Resolution Policies Prevailed In This One. Sviridov v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069785 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 28, 2017) (unpublished) is an interesting case where a terminated police officer failed to beat several
General Rule Was Not Applicable Because “Unity Of Interest” Exception Applied. A trial judge awarded $20,780.20 in costs (primary expert witness fees) as well as attorney’s fees to the defense based on a rejected CCP § 998 offer to joint plaintiffs. The rejecting plaintiffs in Rumbeck v. Premier Valley, Inc., Case No. F072262 (5th
Dispute Focused On Tenant’s Ability To Use Common Areas Behind Lease Premises. Landlord/tenant disputes can be expensive from fee expense and fee award perspectives, as Muzzi v. Bel Air Mart, Case No. C073684 (3d Dist. July 3, 2017) (unpublished) demonstrates. In this one, landlord had to bring a “coercive” declaratory relief action against a
After All, 998 Plaintiff Offeree Did Receive Acceptance By Mail From Defense. Safeway Food & Drugs. Photographer: John Margolies. 2003. Library of Congress. This next case, Lee v. Safeway Inc., Case No. A148301 (1st Dist, Div. 2 June 26, 2017) (unpublished), is interesting in the way both the trial and appellate courts confronted a
Panoply Of Defense Arguments Rejected On Appeal. Plaintiff in Alexander v. Market Street Apartments, LLC, Case No. D070198 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2017) (unpublished) accepted a CCP § 998 offer for $9,980 expressly allowing her to file a fees motion in a wage/hour dispute subject to a one-way favorable Labor Code fee
