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 B229037/B235181 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2012) (unpublished) involved a situation where a FEHA plaintiff, with FEHA usually allowing fees to a successful plaintiff, accepted a CCP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
Puerta Governs, Not Dependent on Whether Party is Represented Or Not, and Does Impact Substantial Rights of Party Claiming Offer Was Invalid. The defendant in Perez v. Torres, Case No. F061214 (5th Dist. May 24, 2012) (certified for publication) must have been kicking himself. He made a “successful” CCP § 998 offer that
#1: Molle-Johnson v. Anderson, Case No. B228321 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17, 2012) (Unpublished). In this one, defendant was awarded costs against plaintiff who rejected prior 998 offers of $50,000/$100,000 but was only awarded $2,331 in compensatory damages in a car accident case. This one had to be reversed because the 998
In a construction defect matter, both sides appealed after a trial court found that judicial referee costs should be split consistent with a judicially-filed stipulation and after making an award of certain statutory costs to plaintiffs after finding that their CCP § 998 offers were valid. Both sides were disappointed after the
Also, Customer Sent 998 Offer Not Beaten by Alarm Company. Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local Santa Ana appellate court in Emergency Technologies, Inc. v. Garcia, Case No. G045685 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a $41,162 fee award to a customer arising out of
Second District, Division 3 Follows Division 7’s Barnett Decision. In our May 28, 2010 post, we discussed Barnett v. First National Ins. Co. of America, 184 Cal.App.4th 1454 (2010), where the Second District, Division 7 overruled a prior decision and held that a CCP § 998 offer made jointly to a husband and
No Abuse of Discretion Shown, Although Requested Costs Cut About $4,500. When you appeal, you must show legal error or some manifest abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs/appellants did not do that in Barany v. Andron, Case No. A130891 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 6, 2012) (unpublished). There, a defendant sent out two separate
