Cases: Section 998

Cases Under Review, Section 998: California Supreme Court Decides That CCP § 998 Costs-Shifting Applies To Pre-Trial Settlements

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Section 998

. . . 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 […]

Section 998: Seven Months Into Litigation, Med Mal Plaintiff Rejecting Section 998 Offer Properly Saddled With Costs-Shifting, Including Expert Witness Fees

Cases: Section 998

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                In Standage v. Bruno, Case No. A165207 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2025) (unpublished), med mal plaintiff lost a case after the jury returned a defense verdict after less than two hours

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                In Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, with the case resolved for less than the amount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                In an interesting unpublished opinion, Calleja v. Udewitz, Case No. B319906 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2024) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA decided that CCP § 998’s cost-shifting penalties applied to a subsequent personal representative of a deceased defendant not accepting a 998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

Scroll to Top