Upshot Is What Prevailing Defendant On Complaint Entitled To 998 Expert Witness Fees. “Dueling” 998 offers at play under a complaint and a cross-complaint were the subject of scrutiny in Horn v. Rand, Case No. B255051 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 17, 2015) (unpublished). Legal malpractice plaintiff failed to accept defendant attorney’s […]
However, Trial Court Erred In Denying Section 998 Costs/Expert Fee Recovery To Prevailing Defendant Which Was Indemnified By Second Defendant Not Prevailing Against Plaintiff. In Litt v. Eisenhower Medical Center, Case No. D067455 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 19, 2015) (published), defendant #1 served a $15,000 998 offer on plaintiff, who later added
Car Manufacturer’s First And Second Offers Were Different, And “Fees On Fees” Are Recoverable For Fee Motion Work Under Lemon Law Fee Shifting Provision. California’s “lemon law” has a fee-shifting provision in favor of a prevailing consumer buyer. (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) Actual time is recoverable under this provision, as long as it
Reason Was That Only Negotiated Medical Expenses Actually Paid By Her Insurer Should Have Been Considered At The Time Of The Offer. In Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541, 548 (2011), the California Supreme Court decided that a negotiated rate differential included in a jury’s award in a personal
Case Illustrates the Potency of CCP § 998 Offer. Lots of press coverage was had on Ms. Ellen Pao’s gender discrimination suit against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. She lost a jury verdict. However, that is hardly the end of the saga. Apparently, much earlier, the defense had sent
Joint Offer by Plaintiffs, Unapportioned as to Three Defendants, Was Valid. In Montoya v. Mayfield, Case No. B255995 (2d Dist., Div. 4 April 6, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs were involved in a serious accident with a truck driven by defendant employee, who was doing so in the course and scope of his employment by
Might Be “Outrageous,” But Total Denial Not Right. In Main Street-Santa Ana, LLC v. Kappauf, Case No. G049092 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a valid CCP § 998 so as to be exposed to recovery of expert witness fees and routine costs. The trial judge denied $227,722.09 in
$202,882.50 In Fees Had Been Requested. Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations. Employee served a 998 offer, which did not allocate a $20,000 settlement offer among claims and
Court of Appeal Did Affirm 998 Cost-Shifting As To Rejected 998 Offer. In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp., Case No. D064587 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 10, 2015) (partially published; prejudgment interest on costs discussion published/998 costs discussion not published), plaintiff won a substantial $1.271 damages award resulting from a rear end
Gregory v. Abou-Samra, Case No. B253223 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 9, 2015) (Unpublished). In this one, an assistant surgeon and employer of the primary surgeon (the latter settling out earlier) in a medical malpractice/fraud action sent plaintiff a CCP § 998 offer to waive all costs and malicious prosecution rights in exchange
