Copies of Exhibits Not Used at Trial Were Legitimate Given Defense Admitted Liability Close To Trial. Plaintiff, in Grigsby v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., Case No. B233430 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 19, 2012) (unpublished), won a $355,000 jury award in a premises liability case after he fractured a kneecap during […]
Plaintiffs lost their medical malpractice/loss of consortium case against several defendants, and were then hit with about $80,000 in expert witness fees as costs because they did not beat defendants’ CCP § 998 offers. They argued principally on appeal, in Petrou v. Trites, Case No. B226747 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 13, 2012)
Clients’ Section 998 Offer Was Invalid Based on Absence of Acceptance Language, So Expert Witness Fees Recoverable. Law Offices of Roger E. Naghash v. Roy, Case No. G044785 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild dispute between former clients and an attorney arising from clients’ prior loss of a
$129,701 In Taxed Costs Was the Result. The next case is somewhat of a chilling reminder to carefully word CCP § 998 offers, making sure the offer/acceptance sections are consistent and insuring that the offeror is covering how fees and costs are to dealt with if the offer is accepted. Also, offers must
Although the appellate court rejected plaintiff’s sole argument on review that future medicals should have been awarded, Hanamaikai v. Howard, Case No. H037346 (6th Dist. Oct. 24, 2012) (unpublished) is a sober reminder of how CCP § 998 is a potent costs-shifting provision in a case where attorney’s fees are not available to
Plaintiff Did Beat 998 Offer When These Components Added to Damages, Justifying An Award of $158,822.85 In Discrimination/Wage and Hour Case Where Base Compensatory Damages Were $21,270.88. As we know from studying cases under the “Employment” category, FEHA and certain Labor Code provisions have mandatory fee-shifting provisions, especially ones tilted in favor of
Gerald G. Knapton, an attorney’s fees expert practicing with Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley PC in Los Angeles, has an article on Code of Civil Procedure section 998, complete with MCLE credit upon taking the accompanying written test, which can be found in the September 2012 edition of the California Lawyer. Aside from
On May 9, 2012, the California Supreme Court accepted for review the case of Martinez v. Brownco, 203 Cal.App.4th 507 (2012), which decided that a second CCP § 998 offer does not extinguish a prior one for purposes of shifting fees and costs. Martinez parted company with Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stors, Inc., 72
Appellate Court Finds Accepted Offer Within 10 Days of Trial Date Was Effective in Issue of First Impression. Tashvighi v. Rapid Plumbing, Inc., Case Nos. B229037/B235181 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2012) (unpublished) involved a situation where a FEHA plaintiff, with FEHA usually allowing fees to a successful plaintiff, accepted a CCP
No Judgment Needed and Dismissal With Prejudice Sufficient to Shift Fees and Costs Under Song-Beverly Act Scheme. The Fifth District in Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. F061981 (5th Dist. July 23, 2012) (partially published) answered some interesting questions about the nature of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 fee-shifting in the context
