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 In Ganson v. Ayoub, Case No. B223504 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 13, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff motorcyclist sued car driver and car owner for injuries occurring as a result of being struck by the car.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A trifecta of issues was considered by the appellate court in Goldstein v. Williams, Case No. D057826 (Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished).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 Gardenias v. Candreva, Case No. B223556 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 14, 2011) (unpublished) reminds us all that Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers are guided by contract principles, especially in the area of acceptance and revocation.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
“Unity of Interest” Doctrine Gives Discretion To Lower Courts in Awarding Costs. In Toland v. Arredondo, Case Nos. F058619/F059182 (5th Dist. Mar. 1, 2011) (unpublished), one plaintiff was awarded $114,590 and another was awarded $12,585 by a jury against a corporate defendant, although an individual defendant (unified in interest with the corporate defendant)
Failure to Appeal Earlier Judgment Was Critical, With Motion to Correct Not Being the Right Move. Boteach v. Botach, Case No. B224823 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 24, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting for purposes of demonstrating that a litigant not liking an earlier costs ruling needs to appeal or bring a motion to vacate.
