Summary Judgment Denial Earlier Did Not Mean Offer Was Unreasonable. In Najah v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., Case Nos. B241097/B245960 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 30, 2014) (published), defendant insurance company won in a credit bid/pre-foreclosure insurance proceeds dispute after making a rejected $30,000 CCP § 998 offer to the plaintiff side. Ultimately, the […]
Wife’s Separate Loss of Consortium Recovery Did Not Have to Be Factored In, When 998 Offer Was Not Joint In Nature. The next case—Wright v. Noack, Case No. C073459 (3d Dist. Sept. 23, 2014) (unpublished)—shows how a well-crafted CCP § 998 offer can indeed yield positive results for the defense, especially in a
Gotta Separately Appeal the Postjudment Order. Albert v. Baccouche, Case No. B249798 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 2, 2014) (unpublished) is yet another reminder of what we have harped on in many posts: separately appeal a postjudgment costs/fee order in order to preserve a challenge to the order. Here, litigant hit with some
And . . . 998 Offer Silence On Fees And Costs Resulted In Fee Recovery By Accepting Plaintiff Under Labor Code Section 218.5. Briscoe v. The Painted Nail, Case No. B252066 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 20, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates how a CCP § 998 offeror needs to be careful in the drafting
$16,000 in Expert Witness Fees Against Defendants Affirmed. In Slothower v. Northern California Inalliance, Case No. C067330 (3d Dist. Aug. 14, 2014) (unpublished), defendants failed to accept plaintiffs’ two separate offers to compromise, one on each defendant in the amount of $649,999. Later, the jury returned a verdict of $1.2 million in favor
Developer Found Negligent, But Not Hit With Any Damages, Did Not Recoup Claimed Costs Of $97,875.42. A residential tract developer found negligent in a construction defect case by a jury must have felt emboldened because the same jury awarded no damages. Developer then sought to recoup $97,875.42 ($77,660 being expert witness fees) in
Judgment Modification Terms Were Too Speculative in Nature. Katz v. El Paseo Collection Elegante, Case No. G049807 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 7, 2014) (unpublished) is a nice follow-on to our July 2, 2014 post in which we explored case law on what type of nonmonetary provisions in a CCP § 998 offer were
Nonmonetary Provisions Not Easily Calculable Are Ones to Shun. Over the years, we have reviewed jurisprudence under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a costs-shifting mechanism designed to encourage settlements. We now provide tips on the type of provisions which will pass muster and those that won’t based on the § 998 case law we
Lower Court Reasonably Exercised Discretion on Costs-of-Proof Sanctions Request and Correctly Found $100,000 998 Offer Was Reasonable. In Harman v. Safeway, Inc., Case No. A134891 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $5,060 personal injury jury verdict against Safeway after he was hit by a runaway grocery cart. Before
Plaintiff Wanted $93,421.50 in Fees and $7,609.19 in Costs. Arguing that a lower court erred in fixing the amount of a fee award is a tough proposition given that a deferential abuse of discretion review standard applies. Plaintiff learned that all too well in Nickel v. ARB, Inc., Case No. G048500 (4th Dist., Div.
