Cases: Section 998

Judgment Enforcement, Section 998: 998 Rejecting Plaintiff’s Post-judgment Fee Request To Obtain Defense 998 Cost And Fees Was Righteous And Should Have Been Allowed

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 998

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                In Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, with the case resolved for less than the amount […]

Section 998: Although Finding “The Defendant” Language Ambiguous And No Relevant Legislative History, 2/1 DCA Finds Unaccepted 998 Cost-Shifting Penalties Are Applicable Against A Personal Representative When Defendant Died After Rejecting 998 Offer

Cases: Section 998

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                In an interesting unpublished opinion, Calleja v. Udewitz, Case No. B319906 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2024) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA decided that CCP § 998’s cost-shifting penalties applied to a subsequent personal representative of a deceased defendant not accepting a 998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

Section 998: Prevailing Insurance Carrier Defendant Properly Awarded $7,500 In Expert Witness Fees And Other Routine Costs After Plaintiffs Rejected Separate CCP § 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

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 Exchange, Case No. B334217 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished), two plaintiffs lost insurance and related tort claims against insurance carrier, after the plaintiffs rebuffed separate $14,242.56 offers under CCP §

Section 998: 4/1 DCA Decides That Separate CCP § 998 Offers Must Be Evaluated By Offerees, Even If One Of Them Is Invalid

Cases: Section 998

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

Equity, Section 998: Lower Court’s Discretionary Decision To Vacate A Dismissal Of An Action Based On A Mistaken Defense CCP § 998 Offer Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 998

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

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Costs-Shifting Under CCP § 998 Displaced By More Specific Labor Code Provisions Relating To Costs For Or Against A Prevailing Employee

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

However, In Unpublished Part Of Decision, Appellate Court Affirmed A Small Fee Award Where Counsel Failed To Follow Lower Court’s Supplemental Briefing/Proof Instructions.                Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, Case No. A167658 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is part of a continuing trend for appellate courts to honor

Section 998: Simultaneous Alternative Offers Are Generally Invalid And Offer To Pay Undisputed Amount With Offer To Resolve Disputes Through A Resolution Process Are Also Invalid

Cases: Section 998

However, In A Split Opinion, Justices Do Not Agree On Whether A Valid Offer Under The Simultaneous Process Can Still Allow For Fee- And Costs-Shifting.                Here is a case which might be a candidate for California Supreme Court review, prompting a split decision on some interesting CCP § 998 issues.                In Gorobets v.

Celebrities, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: The Offspring’s Former Drummer Lost A Contractual Interpretation Dispute, With $856,818 In Contractual Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

Defense Section 998 Offers Found Not To Be Uncertain.                Ron Welty, former drummer of the band The Offspring, sued the band and other affiliated defendants on a contractual interpretation over royalties, with there being a contractual fees clause at issue.  He asked for $2.9 million in damages, but he recovered nothing.  The defendants then

Section 998: Fees And Costs Award Under An Accepted 998 Offer With A Time Cut Off For Awarding These Components Was Reversed Based On The Time Cut-Off

Cases: Section 998

Costs And Fees After The Time-Cut Off Were To Be Stricken On Remand.                Where an unambiguous CCP § 998 offer has a time cut-off with respect to awarding fees and costs, that will be legally honored.   That is what occurred in Olbert v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. B327402 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept.

Scroll to Top