Despite Large Plaintiff Claimed Medical Expenses, Defense Liability Defenses Can Justify Lower Offers As Being In “Good Faith.” Settlement. Cliff Dwellers of the North. 1913. Library of Congress. In Jones v. Barnes, Case No. H037971 (6th Dist. Feb. 26, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs in a car accident case were defensed, after refusing separate
Appellate Court Adopted Strict Construction of 998 Requirements. Although unpublished, Bui v. 4901 Centennial Partners, LLC, Case No. F066582 (5th Dist. Feb. 7, 2014) (unpublished) is a stark reminder to follow the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 procedural dictates in order to make a 998 offer valid in nature. In this
Plaintiff won a procuring cause case against a well-known broker, which successfully brought a motion to tax certain costs claimed by plaintiff. In Praham v. Pickford Real Estate, Inc., Case No. D062477 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 8, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff appealed claiming, among other things, he should have obtained an additional
998 Offer Validity Is Gauged At the Time of the Offer, Not On After Events. What we take away from Smith v. Wagner, Case No. B245821 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 19, 2013) (unpublished) is that CCP § 998 offers must be evaluated based on the state of pleadings when the 998 offers
All of the Fees Could Be Deemed in Preparation for Trial. A trial court, much to a homeowner association’s chagrin (actually the insurer defending the HOA), denied its motion to tax costs, which was predicated on the argument that all expert witness fees claimed by the other side should not be awarded as
Appellate Court Followed Fish v. Guevarra, Finding It Was Rightly Decided. Many times in blogging over the years, we have stressed that postjudgment fees and costs rulings should be separately appealed as a preventive measure. The next case reinforces the prudence in following this general protocol. Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., Case
Plaintiff’s Inclusion of Acceptance Terms Being Filed With Court Meant 998 Offers Were Not Valid Statutory Offers, But Were Valid Non-Statutory Offers Not Accepted Correctly. Arreola v. Napole, Case No. B239467 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished) is an interesting case of 998 offers which likely were not authorized, but in
Second District, Division 8 Is Not Going To Be First Court To So Hold to the Contrary. In Aguilar v. Gostischef, Case No. B238853 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 13, 2013) (published), a plaintiff losing a leg in an automobile accident made pre-trial offers to attempt to accept defendant’s insured’s $100,000 policy limits
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
