Cases: Section 998

Deadlines/Section 998: Dismissed Defendants Under Rejected Joint 998 Offer Must Await Judgment Against Remaining Defendants Before Expert Fee Shifting Can Be Determined—998 Fee Shifting Determination Was Premature

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Section 998

  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

Probate, Requests For Admissions, Section 998: Lower Court Properly Denied Probate Estate’s Request For Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions And Routine Costs

Cases: Probate, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

  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

Requests For Admission/Section 998: Losing Defendant Actually Won A Net Judgment After Section 998 Fee-Shifting Occurred Based On Successful 998 Offer

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: 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

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Plaintiff Accepting 998 Offer Entitled To Labor Code Fees For Inextricably Intertwined Wage-Hour/Overtime/Failure To Maintain Records Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

  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      Barnes v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Inc., Case No. B255034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting 998/apportionment case which has some lessons for both plaintiffs and the defense in the Labor Code violations

Consumer Statutes, Costs, Section 998: Plaintiff Losing Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claim Properly Exposed To Costs, Expert Witness Fees, And Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  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

Section 998: Iris Weinmann Has Instructive Article On Making And Responding To Section 998 Offers In Employment Matters

Cases: Section 998

  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

Equity, Section 998: Nonprevailing 998 Offeree Saddled With $ 33,198.06 In Costs After Rejecting $7,500 998 Offer Not Beat Following Jury Trial

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 998

  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

Section 998: Two 998 Offers, One On A Complaint And One On A Cross-Complaint, Were Not “The Same” And Were Properly Analyzed In Separate Fashion

Cases: Section 998

  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

Section 998: Prevailing Parties Analysis, For Purposes of Section 998, Requires “Separate-Per-Party” Analysis

Cases: Section 998

  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

Scroll to Top