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 Plaintiff in Arias v. McDaris, Case No. B254163 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a personal injury claimant suing two defendants, a car driver and the one alleged to have negligently entrusted the car […]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
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 Sept. 23, 2014) (unpublished)—shows how a well-crafted CCP § 998 offer can indeed yield positive results for the defense, especially in a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 Albert v. Baccouche, Case No. B249798 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 2, 2014) (unpublished) is yet another reminder of what we have harped on in many posts: separately appeal a postjudgment costs/fee order in order to preserve a challenge to the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 Briscoe v. The Painted Nail, Case No. B252066 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 20, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates how a CCP § 998 offeror needs to be careful in the drafting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 Aug. 14, 2014) (unpublished), defendants failed to accept plaintiffs’ two separate offers to compromise, one on each defendant in the amount of $649,999.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
