Also, Joint Offer To Husband And Wife Was Valid. In Gunter v. Schneier, Case Nos. B271517 & B277066 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 28, 2018) (unpublished), husband and wife, as plaintiffs, sued a neurosurgeon for medical malpractice, but lost after a jury verdict found the doctor was not negligent. Earlier, but two years into the
Language Justified Awarding Plaintiff Only Preoffer Fees And Costs By The Trial Judge. In Timed Out LLC v. 13359 Corp., Case No. B280301 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 27, 2018) (unpublished), the defense offered to pay through a CCP § 998 offer a “total sum” of $12,500 “exclusive of reasonable costs and attorney fees, if
Appellate Court Wanted To Encourage Global Settlement Offers From Plaintiffs To End Litigation Against Multiple Defendants. In Gonzalez v. Lew, Case No. B271312 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 1, 2018) (published), both sets of plaintiffs’ heirs sued the owner of a rented home when a fire engulfed the rented home in which two people
However, 4/2 DCA Denied Expert Witness Fees To Unsuccessful FEHA Plaintiff Rejecting CCP § 998 Offer, Parting Company With Contrary Results By 1/5 And 4/1 DCAs. We have to say that 2018 has started out with a bang, producing a decision by the Fourth District, Division 2 acknowledging it is parting company from the
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 Although unpublished, Hackett v. Silva Trucking, Inc., Case No. C076745 (3d Dist. Nov. 22, 2017) (unpublished) is an interesting analysis of factors which were not properly considered when the defense rejected 998 offers in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 B276410/B277982 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 9, 2017) (unpublished) reiterates lessons for crafting a successful CCP § 998 offer, especially how one must be careful in asking for narrow releases and waiver of claims to insure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
