“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 In Kulkarni v. Upasani, Case No. G045914 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 19, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff husband sued several family members and acquaintances, accusing them of conspiring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
Apportionment May Be Required In Response to Motion to Tax Costs, But Trial Court Erred By Not Allowing Allocation After Raising Apportionment Objection Sua Sponte. Justice Bedsworth, for a 3-0 panel, held in Morris v. Wilson, Case No. G047534 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2013) (unpublished) that a defendant is not required
Trial Courts Possess Discretion to Control Any Gamesmanship in 998 Process. The California Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of recovery of expert witness costs where plaintiff has presented two unaccepted pretrial settlement offers under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, neither of which is beat by the balking offeree. In
However, Matter Remanded Because Judicial Confirmation Proceedings Costs Were Recoverable and Erroneously Not Awarded. Watson v. Knorr, Case No. H036430 (6th Dist. May 13, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where plaintiffs won a $1.1 million arbitration award “plus costs under the Code of Civil Procedure.” Plaintiffs never submitted costs issues to the arbitrator,
Sanctions–Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 argued that defendants' inclusion of a request for dismissal in its motion for sanction rendered the sanctions request invalid. Not so, because simply doing this did not contravene underlying any statutory purpose
Fifth District Sides With Johnson On Appellate Split in Thinking. McDaniel v. Asunsion, Case No. F064240 (5th Dist. Mar. 27, 2013) (published) is a situation where the Fifth District had to consider the issue of whether a joint offer made to multiple wrongful death plaintiffs was invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section
Often times, the abuse of discretion standard of review dictates results in cases involving fee or fee-shifting cases. That was the situation in Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Rick Concrete Constr. Co., Case No. D058134 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 8, 2013) (unpublished). There, the insured requested $185,915 in Brandt fees,
