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Gregory v. Abou-Samra, Case No. B253223 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 9, 2015) (Unpublished).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
Olio Of Fees/Costs Issues Confronted By 4/1 DCA In Unpublished Decision. About olio: Is there that o’re his French ragout Or olio that wad staw a sow, Or fricassee wad mak her spew Wi’ perfect scunner, Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view On sic a dinner? — Robert Burns Cosco Fire Protection,
Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded, Former Attorneys Represented Client In Seven Suits, and Section 998 Rejection Gave Rise to Expert Witness Fee Award. This next opinion, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan, Case No. A139863 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 19, 2015) (published), is must reading for both litigants and attorneys involved
Costs and sanctions are generally discretionary matters, even if the record might show a different conclusion could have been reached. Appellate courts are loathe to disturb a trial court’s conclusion in such matters, as Sdun v. Patterson, Case No. C070623 (3d Dist. Feb. 18, 2015) (unpublished) aptly illustrates. There, plaintiffs won a
Offer In Personal Injury Case Requiring Satisfaction of Liens/Encumbrances Did Not Render 998 Offer Uncertain In Nature; Defense Garnered $41,020.76 Costs Upon Review In Modified Reversal. The Third District in Velasquez v. Koshi, Case No. C072767 (3d Dist. Feb. 9, 2015) (unpublished) involved a situation where a personal injury plaintiff rejected a defense
Gotta Make It Clear Where Plaintiff Wearing “Two Hats.” Defendants in an auto accident case moved for recovery of postoffer costs after plaintiffs rejected a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer of $5,001 to Jenna Lane in a case involving Jenna Lane, individually and as a guardian ad litem for Allison, and
Car Manufacturer Defendant Prevailed For Fees, But Might Be Liable For Some Routine Costs. Actually, we can say that counsel for Mercedes-Benz in this case made some good moves as far as mitigating fee/costs exposure. M-B was embroiled in a gripe from a car owner about excessive multiple repairs. Car owner sued, but
Not Unreasonable to Make Offer to One Defendant, At Insurance Policy Limit, to Detriment of Co-Defendant. Plaintiff in Arias v. McDaris, Case No. B254163 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a personal injury claimant suing two defendants, a car driver and the one alleged to have negligently entrusted the car
However, “Prevailing” Landlord Did Not Garner 998 Postoffer Expert Fees or Get More Fees, In Case Implicitly Founded “Over Litigated” By Lower Court—With Landlord Trying To Get $365,000-$387,000 In Fees. If you have followed us over the years (we thank you for those that have, hoping we have provided some insights, or welcome
