Procedural, Bad Faith 998 Offer, And Late-Filed Motion To Tax Costs Arguments Rebuffed On Appeal. In Dinh v. Lejano, Case No. H041828 (6th Dist. May 31, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff won $12,000 in a personal injury case, obtaining a jury verdict for past medical expenses but not subsequent treatments/pain and suffering. The jury also […]
Setoff Language Of CCP § 877 Also Supported Result. Tuttle v. Ukiah Adventist Hospital, Case No. A144759 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 31, 2016) (unpublished) was an uncontested slip-and-fall case from a liability perspective, with plaintiffs obtaining several pre-trial settlements but eventually winning a jury verdict as to one non-settling defendant, with set-off
Both Went Away Unhappy, We Assume. In Russo v. Bank of America, Case No. D067623 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 17, 2016) (unpublished), borrower and lender won some sides of claims in an impound dispute, although plaintiff borrower eventually won $523.14 based on a contract with a fees clause after seeking $795,000 plus
Lots Of Monetary Awards Were Requested By The Defense, But Nixed. Above: East bound Union Pacific railroad freight train waiting in a siding, Alray, Calif. Coming up through Cajon Pass. March, 1943. Jack Delano, photographer. Library of Congress. Ammari v. Union Pacific Railroad, Case No. G052290 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2016)
Matter Remanded To Reconsider Routine Costs Awardable To Plaintiff. Sanford v. Rasnick, Case No. A145704 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 25, 2016) (published) involved a situation where plaintiff motorcyclist sued defendants owner/driver of a car. Defendants made a joint, unapportioned pretrial CCP § 998 offer of $130,000, but plaintiff recovered less after various
This Is A Change From Prior Law. Toste v. CalPortland Construction, Case No. B256946 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 2, 2016) (published) is an important 2016 decision construing an important 2015 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, the section relating to pretrial offers to compromise. The most post-worthy portion of
No Need to Provide Declarations From Expert Witness Fee In Support Of Expense Request Under CCP § 998. What happened in Nations Title Co. of Calif. v. Security Union Title Ins. Co, Case Nos. B250490/B253840 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 25, 2016) (unpublished), was that defendants won a jury verdict on a breach
Waiver of Costs Offer Not Reasonable Given Plaintiffs Had Severe Injuries and Expert Witness Discovery Had Not Even Commenced. In order for offers under CCP § 998 to be held reasonable and in good faith, timing is everything – offerors need to make 998 offers at a juncture of the case where both
Confusion Amok – But Fee and Expert Witness Fee Recovery Awaited Subsequent Determinations. JMR Construction Corp. v. Environmental Assessment and Remediation Mgt., Inc., Case No. H039055 (6th Dist. Dec. 30, 2015) (partially published; fee and expert witness fee discussions not published) just goes to show you that fee and 998 recoveries will not have
Substantial Expert Witness Costs Can Be Shifted Under CCP § 998. In Sanchez v. Scripps Health, Case No. D066005 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 8, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a medical malpractice case, with defendant awarded over $250,000 in disputed expert witness fees based on plaintiffs’ rejection of two CCP § 998 offers.
