Even a Modest 998 Offer Is Sustainable If Defense Is Strong. Welch v. Kemp, Case No. H041311 (6th Dist. Nov. 23, 2015) (unpublished) is a situation where a defendant attorney won a legal malpractice action against plaintiff ex-client, after having denied liability throughout the case and after plaintiff rejected a 998 offer to […]
Section 998 Offer Was Reasonable And Expert Fees Did Not Have To Be Tied To Issue Eventually Won. In Melendrez v. Ameron International Corp., Case Nos. B256928/B259423 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 17, 2015) (published), defendant won an asbestos suit against plaintiffs in a wrongful death suit based on the workers’ compensation exclusivity
Also, Service Of Judgment Electronically Extended The Time To File/Serve Costs Memorandum. In a very detailed published decision, the Second District, Division 3 confronted two issues: (1) whether a costs memorandum filed 17 days after electronic service of a notice of entry of judgment was timely, and (2) whether some dismissed defendants in
Section 998 Inapplicable In Probate Proceeding. In a dispute involving the reformation of the terms of a “tontine” or survivalist partnership agreement, a probate estate was denied “costs-of-proof” attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 and had stricken its memorandum seeking post-remand costs based on Code of Civil Procedure section 998
Although Suffering $8,210 “Net” Adverse Jury Verdict, Section 998 Expert Witness Fees/Other Costs Actually Resulted In Positive Award To Defense. Talk about a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer being a “game changer,” it was that in the next case and with football season looming, should be heeded by all litigators no
Although Meal And Rest Break Claims Would Not Trigger Fee Recovery, Other Claims Did The Trick. Barnes v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Inc., Case No. B255034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting 998/apportionment case which has some lessons for both plaintiffs and the defense in the Labor Code violations
No Costs Allocation Between Plaintiffs Required, 998 Offer Shifted Expert Witness Fees, And Prosecution Of CLRA Claim At Trial Was Not In Good Faith. Foss v. San Antonio Community Hospital, Case No. E057236 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 28, 2015) (unpublished) was a case prosecuted by plaintiffs against medically affiliated defendants under various
4/3 DCA Unpublished Decision Now On The Books! On June 14, 2015, we posted on McKenzie v. Ford Motor Co., a Fourth District, Division 3 decision reversing a fee award under California’s lemon law based on a lower court’s erroneous determination that two 998 offers were similar enough to deny an award of
However, Article Actually Explores Nuances Applicable In Non-Employment Matters. In the June 2015 edition of The Advocate Magazine, attorney Iris Weinmann—a partner in Greenberg & Weinmann (located in Santa Monica)—has authored a very instructive article entitled “Making and responding to CCP 998 offers in employment matters” and subtitled “Dealing with multiple parties, and
Plaintiff Only Recovered $2,229, And CCP § 473 Relief Did Not Resonate. We have to say that in pro per plaintiffs need to beware when confronted with CCP § 998 offers—even though our courts are open to all, in pro per representation is fraught with perils, as Jones v. Pierce, Case No. A139665
