Main Holding is that Winning Defendant Can Recoup Expert Fees Paid In Deposing Plaintiff’s Expert. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the Fourth District, Division 3, authored a colorful opinion in the routine costs/section 998 area in Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc., Case No. G044718 (4th Dist., Div. […]
Reversal of Costs Based On Invalid Offer Occurred, While Another Cost Award Sustained Because 998 Offer Made In Good Faith/Reasonable in Nature. Our local Santa Ana appellate court decided Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 (2011), which invalidated a CCP § 998 offer because it did not include the acceptance provision required
Fact that Defense Verdict Ultimately Resulted Did Not Change the Analysis. Here is an interesting unpublished decision in the CCP § 998 area, reinforcing that courts will take a pragmatic approach to gauging “reasonableness” of a 998 offer at the time that it was made–not by hindsight after an “iffy” defense verdict in
Public Interest, Significant Benefit, and Financial Burden Components Are Analyzed in this One; Section 998 Rejected Offer Also Considered. An ex-Chowchilla police chief (Mr. Robinson) won a Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) claim against the City, with the trial court later awarding $50,140 on a separate contract claim. Previously,
Wrapping It Up: M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011 Part 1 of 2 It is that time of year, at year end, for us to list our top published attorney’s fees decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Courts of Appeal. Although we normally
Lower Court Properly Scaled Back Expert Fee Costs Award Against Plaintiff Based on Her Financial Situation. Hernandez v. The Regents of the University of California, Case Nos. A129427/A130063 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2011) (unpublished) involved some interesting fees and costs issues, especially given the shifting impact of Code of Civil Procedure
2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished) In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer. However, plaintiff’s total judgment–the sum of the jury award and $100,000 in attorney’s fees awarded by the
Plaintiff Did Not Have to Pay $21,000 in Expert Witness Fees. Plaintiff in Sanchez v. Molina, Case No. F059653 (5th Dist. Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), who sought $700,000 in damages and lost a jury trial based on lack of causation (although negligence was found), had rejected a defense $10,000 offer under CCP §
Cost or Fee Shifting Justified Under CCP § 998. Plaintiff seeking damages in a dental malpractice case rejected a 998 offer of $25,001 inclusive of each side bearing their own costs, but was defensed after a jury trial and ordered to pay $2,850 in expert witness fees based on rejecting the 998 offer.
Frivolous Appeal No Laughing Matter. Marriage of Shannahan, Case No. D058220 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2011) (unpublished) is not blog-worthy for its ultimate result of affirming a $20,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against husband. However, it is worthy for establishing the “going rate” for frivolous appeal sanctions to the clerk
