Message Is “Clarity Is King” In Framing These Offers, Especially Where A Civil Code Section 1542 Release Is Desired By The Offeror. Rachel E. Lustig, in an article appearing in the November 2025 Orange County Lawyer at pages 46-47entitled “Avoiding The Pitfalls: What K.M. v. Grossmont Union Teaches About Drafting Enforceable Section 998 Offers,” discusses […]
The Result Was That Car Manufacturer’s Request For Costs Had To Be Revisited And The $200,000 Fee Award To Plaintiffs Had To Be Reevaluated. In Zavala v. Hyundai Motor America, 107 Cal.App.5th 458, 463 (2024), rev. granted, No. S289000 (March 19, 2025), the 4/1 DCA concluded that CCP § 998 offers may include simultaneous,
If You Include Language Like “Or Could Have Been Brought,” This Might Well Be Invalidating For An Offer—Drafting Tip to All! Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc., Case No. B337902 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is an excellent reminder of how to structure CCP § 998 offers with releases
Opinion Shows How Substantial Expenses Can Be Shifted. Doe v. Accor Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Case No. A167247 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2025) (unpublished, posted on July 22, 2025) was where a prevailing defendant group won $108,000 based on a successful CCP § 998 offer and $39,140 (out of a
No Non-Economic Damages Were Sought In Vehicle Property Injury Case, So Appealing Defendants Did Not Fashion A Successful 998 Offer. Defendants were held jointly and severally liable in a vehicle property injury matter where plaintiff recovered a $204,528 jury verdict damages award as against them and others, based on damages to plaintiff’s truck and
Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach. In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute between a plaintiff subcontractor and a defendant general contractor, with general contractor bringing a cross-complaint
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 Apr. 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an Unruh Act claim against defendant based on an altercation with Target’s security guard.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
