First Offer, A “Waiver Of Costs” Offer, Was Valid and Made In Good Faith, Given The Jury Came Back With A Defense Verdict. CCP § 998 can be a game changer, depending on when it is made, how it is fashioned, and if it complies with the statutory requirements. All of that led to […]
Defense Was Awarded $67,313.97 Under § 998, Applicable To Unruh Act Claims. In Hughes v. Target Corp., Case No. H050996 et al. (6th Dist. Apr. 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an Unruh Act claim against defendant based on an altercation with Target’s security guard. She lost. Earlier, she had rejected a $15,000 CCP §
. . . Although The Parties Are Free To Allocate Costs Differently Under Their Settlement. The California Supreme Court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. S280598 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2025) (published) decided that CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just judgments or arbitration awards, for
Opinion Held That Postjudgment Enforcement Statute Trumped CCP § 998 With Respect To Fee Entitlement. On January 10, 2025, we posted on Elmi v. Related Management Company, L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025), when it was unpublished. We can now update everyone by indicating that it was certified for
Acceptance Line With Request For Dismissal Was No Defect, With The Offer Made In Good Faith Based On Informative Litigation Activities. In Standage v. Bruno, Case No. A165207 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2025) (unpublished), med mal plaintiff lost a case after the jury returned a defense verdict after less than two hours
Section 998 Governed Prejudgment Issues, But 998 Offer Costs And Fees Enforcement Activities Were Governed By Post-judgment Enforcement Statutes. In Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, with the case resolved for less than the amount
Policy of Encouraging Settlements Cemented This Conclusion. In an interesting unpublished opinion, Calleja v. Udewitz, Case No. B319906 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2024) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA decided that CCP § 998’s cost-shifting penalties applied to a subsequent personal representative of a deceased defendant not accepting a 998 offer before his death
Plaintiffs Obtained Zero Damages, So $14,242.56 Offers To Each Unsuccessful Plaintiff Allowed For 998 Costs Shifting. In Chang v. Fire Ins. Exchange, Case No. B334217 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished), two plaintiffs lost insurance and related tort claims against insurance carrier, after the plaintiffs rebuffed separate $14,242.56 offers under CCP §
This Likely Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Reasoning, Especially From Reasoning in the Second District’s Gorobets Recent Opinion—But Maybe Not On The End Result When Evaluating Alternative Offer Scenarios. Well, we have a split in intermediate appellate thinking on how simultaneous, alternative CCP § 998 offers should be treated under California law. On
Defense Offer Of $100,000, Rather Than $10,000, Was A Typographical Mistake Worthy Of Correction Where Defense Counsel Notified Plaintiff Of Error Within Three Minutes. For litigators, we all know we are not perfect, with mistakes being made based on the volume of cases we process. The next case, Avila v. John N. Kitta and
