General Rule Was Not Applicable Because “Unity Of Interest” Exception Applied. A trial judge awarded $20,780.20 in costs (primary expert witness fees) as well as attorney’s fees to the defense based on a rejected CCP § 998 offer to joint plaintiffs. The rejecting plaintiffs in Rumbeck v. Premier Valley, Inc., Case No. F072262 (5th
Dispute Focused On Tenant’s Ability To Use Common Areas Behind Lease Premises. Landlord/tenant disputes can be expensive from fee expense and fee award perspectives, as Muzzi v. Bel Air Mart, Case No. C073684 (3d Dist. July 3, 2017) (unpublished) demonstrates. In this one, landlord had to bring a “coercive” declaratory relief action against a
After All, 998 Plaintiff Offeree Did Receive Acceptance By Mail From Defense. Safeway Food & Drugs. Photographer: John Margolies. 2003. Library of Congress. This next case, Lee v. Safeway Inc., Case No. A148301 (1st Dist, Div. 2 June 26, 2017) (unpublished), is interesting in the way both the trial and appellate courts confronted a
Panoply Of Defense Arguments Rejected On Appeal. Plaintiff in Alexander v. Market Street Apartments, LLC, Case No. D070198 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2017) (unpublished) accepted a CCP § 998 offer for $9,980 expressly allowing her to file a fees motion in a wage/hour dispute subject to a one-way favorable Labor Code fee
Case Teaches That 998 Offers Must Be Taken Seriously, With Appellate Court Rebuffing Multiple Technical Challenges To The Underlying Offers. Rempell v. Hofmann, Case No. A146257 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 14, 2017) (unpublished) involved a husband and wife suing for personal injuries/loss of consortium against a defendant making two pre-trial Code of Civil
Basic Lesson Is That Request Can Be Made After Merits Determination, With No Pre-Merits “Notice Alert” To Arbitrator Being Necessary. Heimlich v. Shivji, Case No. H042641 (6th Dist. May 31, 2017) (published) is a significant appellate decision specifying how a litigant in an arbitration proceeding preserves the ability to obtain recovery
Typo In 998 Offer Not Material; Pecuniary Interest Disqualified Attorney From Fees. On April 27, 2017, we posted on Gillotti v. Stewart, a then unpublished Third District decision which found immaterial typo in a CCP § 998 offer and also disqualified fees for an attorney with a pecuniary interest in the
Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished): Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery. In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999
Also, Offer Was Valid For Proposing Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Action With Prejudice. In Mauzey v. Morschauser, Case Nos. D070681/D070683 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge found a CCP § 998 offer invalid because it was not signed or authorized by offeree’s counsel (apparently counsel’s secretary had signed) and
Defense Ignoring Of Offer And Equitable Estoppel Defense Did Not Prevail. Plaintiff’s CCP § 998 offer was found to be invalid by both the lower and appellate courts in Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc., Case No. D063556 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 6, 2017) (partially published; 998 discussion published) based on the failure
