Cases: Section 998 – Page 31 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Costs/Equity/Section 998: Second District, Division 6 Affirms Judicial Referee Split And Determination That 998 Offers From Plaintiffs Were Valid For Awarding Costs To Plaintiffs

May 7, 2012

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

Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Section 998: Unlicensed Alarm Company Subject To Fee Exposure After Losing To Customer Under Contract With Fee Clause

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

May 5, 2012

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Santa Ana appellate court in Emergency Technologies, Inc. v. Garcia, Case No. G045685 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a $41,162 fee award to a customer arising out of

Section 998: 998 Offer Made Jointly To Husband And Wife In Personal Injury Case Is Valid

Cases: Section 998

April 26, 2012

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

Section 998: Costs Award Affirmed Where Defendant’s Separate 998 Offers Beat Plaintiffs’ Recovery

Cases: Section 998

April 7, 2012

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 Plaintiffs/appellants did not do that in Barany v. Andron, Case No. A130891 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 6, 2012) (unpublished).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

Section 998: Two $10,000 998 Offers To Two Affiliated Plaintiffs Were Valid And Not Token In Nature

Cases: Section 998

April 4, 2012

However, Costs for Outside Counsel Research in the Guise of Expert Witness Needed to be Reevaluated. In Azoulay v. Valley View Medical Clinic Inc., Case No. G044942 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 3, 2012) (unpublished), defendants won a partnership dispute against plaintiff physical therapist, and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to tax

Section 998: Doesn’t Apply In Family Law Proceedings

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Section 998

March 27, 2012

We Learn Something Everyday. The great thing about this blog is that we learn something everyday. One of our readers called in and, in the process of discussing an issue, he informed us that his research revealed that CCP § 998 offers are not operative in family law proceedings. In re

Section 1717/Section 998: “Pocketbook” Considerations Should Not Factor Into Civil Code Section 1717 Contractual Fee Award

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

March 16, 2012

Failure to Award 998 Offer Costs Reversed, Including Refusal to Compensate For Excluded Expert Testimony Whose Admissibility Was Uncertain, But Maybe Necessary. Above: Pocketbook considerations. 1942. Arthur S. Siegel, photographer. Library of Congress. Here is an interesting one that we predict will engender some interesting discussion on at least the main published Civil

Section 998: Defendant Did Beat 998 Offer So It Was Entited To $180,000 In Post-Offer Costs

Cases: Section 998

March 15, 2012

Plaintiff Claimed Offset Should Not Have Been Considered, But Total Calculus Of Offer Still Meant Defendant Won. We have told you before in our category “Section 998” that Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers deserve careful consideration and sometimes even byzantine arithmetic to make sure they are properly analyzed. The next case

Section 998: Nothing In Elder Abuse Statutory Scheme Prevents Costs, As Opposed From Fees, Being Awarded From Rejected 998 Offer

Cases: Section 998

March 12, 2012

Costs, Not Fees, Are a Different Animal for Shifting Purposes; Section 998 Given Added Vitality in this Case. Bates v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, Inc., Case No. B232731 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2012) (certified for publication) is a sad, but interesting, case on whether unilateral fee-shifting provisions–such as those under California’s elder

Interpretation of Fee Clauses/POOF!/Section 998: Winning Creditor Obtained $210,000 Fee/Expert Fee Award After Beating Main Defendant’s 998

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

March 9, 2012

Court Reminds Us About Right 998 Calculus, Sustains Broad Fees Clause Applying To Torts, And POOF!s Another Substantial Fee Award To Another Defendant After Reversing A Without Leave Demurrer. This next case is amazing in demonstrating how a relatively small loan of $100,000 can result in lots of attorney’s fees/expert fee recoupment to