No “Magic Language” of Acceptance Required. From our own local Santa Ana appellate court, CCP § 998 jurisprudence gained an important case in the form of Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267 (2011), which requires some provision to allow the offeree to indicate acceptance of the offer by signing a statement that the […]
No “Magic Language” of Acceptance Required. From our own local Santa Ana appellate court, CCP § 998 jurisprudence gained an important case in the form of Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267 (2011), which requires some provision to allow the offeree to indicate acceptance of the offer by signing a statement that the
$16,153 in Expert Witness Fees Sustained, Where Losing Party Failed to Beat $50,001 998 Offer. In Albert v. Satellite Management Co., Case No. E054601 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 30, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff finally lost a bench trial in a personal injury case. Defendant had made a prior CCP § 998 offer for
Allocation of Costs Between Defendants Is Not Mandatory Under Section 998. In Hundal v. Singh, Case No. C071873 (3d Dist. Sept. 24, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a car accident case against defendants, after sharply conflicting testimony in which the jury went with plaintiffs as far as negligence but found for the defense based
998 Accepted Offer Was $40,000, Chagrined Plaintiff Denied Requested $225,750 In Fees. Care of Justice Yegan and his colleagues in the Second District, Division 6, we have an interesting CCP § 998/Civil Code § 1717 decision in The DuPuis Group v. Atticus Information Systems, Inc., Case No. B242722 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept.
$97,145.71 Fee Award Out of Requested $488,521.45 Fees/Costs Request Was the Ultimate Result. The next case illustrates how appellate courts will avoid having to decide the clashing interests of two statutes if they can decide that the lower court showed equitable discretion so as to moot any decision on the “clash.” Overland
“Judgment” Is Not A Necessary Predicate. This next decision makes CCP § 998 an even more powerful tool, and we believe will engender some interesting reaction from other appellate courts. Construing section 998, Mon Chong Loong Trading Corp. v. Superior Court, Case No. B240828 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 23, 2013) (published)
Demand in Complaint Did Not Determine Good Faith of 998 Offer. This next one involves “wild” facts but a fairly routine application of the law. In Kulkarni v. Upasani, Case No. G045914 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 19, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff husband sued several family members and acquaintances, accusing them of conspiring
Second District, Division 5 Follows Puerta. Although not involving attorney’s fees, we report that the Second District, Division 5 in Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Case No. B236875 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2013) (partially published) did follow Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1272 (2011), a Fourth District, Division 3
Additional Costs Awards for Experts and Trial Technology Also Sustained. In Bender v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B236294 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2013) (published), plaintiff won an excessive police force Bane Act suit, with the Bane Act containing a fee-shifting clause. The lower court also awarded $989,258 to plaintiff
