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 Gardenias v. Candreva, Case No. B223556 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 14, 2011) (unpublished) reminds us all that Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers are guided by contract principles, especially in the area of acceptance and revocation.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 Mar. 1, 2011) (unpublished), one plaintiff was awarded $114,590 and another was awarded $12,585 by a jury against a corporate defendant, although an individual defendant (unified in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 Boteach v. Botach, Case No. B224823 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 24, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting for purposes of demonstrating that a litigant not liking an earlier costs ruling needs to appeal or bring a motion to vacate.
$172,546 Costs/Expert Fee Award Against Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal. In Zamora v. Textron, Inc., Case Nos. A124923/124992 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 18, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff lost to one defendant in a case where she claimed injuries when the brakes failed in her “Haulster” three-wheeled vehicle. Prior to trial (where plaintiff eventually won almost
Mutuality Principles and Invalidity of 998 Offer Buttressed Correctness of Trial Court’s Fee Awards. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v University of Southern California, Case Nos. B202789/B205034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished) was a hard fought case where plaintiff sued USC for breach of contract. Although lost profits evidence was found to have
District Judge Properly Denied Expert Fees Requested Under § 998 Because More Restrictive Federal Law Applied. In First National Mortgage Co. v. Federal Realty Investment Trust, Nos. 9-16377 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2011) (for publication), plaintiff won a breach of contract case, but the district court refused to award it expert witness
Fifth District Passes On Impact of Third District’s Opinion in Barba v. Perez. Just to show you how California intermediate appellate opinions do indeed enter into the jurisprudential “flow” of decisions, we now can report on how another appellate court has reacted to Barba v. Perez, 166 Cal.App.4th 444 (2008), an interesting CCP
Court of Appeal Disagrees that FedEx Charge Allowable Under Costs Statute as “Postage” Charge Equivalent. Many of the decisions we review are fairly technical, and the next one is no exception. It does show that 998 offer rejection decisions will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, but that costs decisions on legal entitlement will
$509,231 Scaled Back By Trial Court, But Sustained On Appeal. Here is an interesting substantial fee award. Half of what plaintiff requested, but way above the $95,000 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer eventually accepted in the case on the eve of trial. Goes to show that fees do not have to be
