Trial Court Must Focus on Receipt Issue. This next case takes us back to evidence class sessions in law school. It involves presumptions, so relax and go back in time to days past in your educational experience. Plaintiff won a warranty dispute against Ford Motor Company, who said that it sent a […]
Statutory Construction of 998 Was Unclear, Nullifying $5,350 Expert Witness Fee Award. We have seen a recent flurry of decisions in the CCP § 998 area. The next one, from a published decision perspective, trailblazes on the issue of whether a § 998 offer with no acceptance language can survive an invalidity attack.
Another “Bright-Line” Rule Emanates In Recent 998 Decision. Engle v. Copenbarger & Copenbarger, 157 Cal.App.4th 165, 168-169 (2007) announced a “bright-line rule” in the CCP § 998 area: a defense offer silence as to costs and fees means that they are excluded from the ambit of the offer, such that plaintiff should have
No Procedural or Substantive Infirmities in Plaintiff’s Rejected 998 Offer. In Ganson v. Ayoub, Case No. B223504 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 13, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff motorcyclist sued car driver and car owner for injuries occurring as a result of being struck by the car. Plaintiff offered to settle through a 998 offer of
$10,000 Offer Not Token Where Pretrial Investigation Showed No Basis to Invalidate Will in “All or Nothing” Case. CCP § 998 offers do not have to be substantial to survive a “good faith” test. If the offeror does adequate pretrial investigation in an “all or nothing” case, even fairly small offers will be
No Provision Required that Winning Defendant Enter Costs Judgment Under Any Deadlines. Here is an interesting case that really is a big one to be archived in our “Deadlines” category. It goes to show you that recalcitrance, while not to be condoned, may not get punished unless there are statutory or court rule
L.A. County Gets Nada Monetary Relief After Credits, And Is Stung By Affirmance of 998 Offers by Insurers Costing It $5.9 Million. The next one is the apparent conclusion of what our local Santa Ana appellate court analogized as being “easily the 14 Years War of civil litigation in Orange County” between Los
Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Without Effect; Offset for Prior Settlements Meant No Change in Result Due to Her Prior 998 Offer. A trifecta of issues was considered by the appellate court in Goldstein v. Williams, Case No. D057826 (Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, plaintiff sued for breach of contract and in
Result … 998 Offer Was Enforceable. Gardenias v. Candreva, Case No. B223556 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 14, 2011) (unpublished) reminds us all that Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers are guided by contract principles, especially in the area of acceptance and revocation. In this one, defendant accepted a $15,000 § 998
Plaintiff Could Not Claim Costs, At All, Because His Judgment Did Not Exceed His 998 Offer. Here is an interesting case involving dueling CCP § 998 offers (which we are seeing more of recently), demonstrating how appellate and trial courts will take a pragmatic approach when interpreting joint section 998 offers depending on
