Decision May Have Implications for Application of CCP § 998 in Diversity Cases. An important decision for federal diversity cases came out yesterday from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, pitting F.R.Civ.P. 68 against a state pre-trial settlement scheme in Arizona. In Goldberg v. Pacific Indemnity Co., Case No. 09-16243 (9th Cir. Dec. […]
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Trial Court’s “Wash” Decision on Issues. The next case involves a melange of fee and costs issues arising from a contract and civil rights case in which plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims but beat school district’s contract cross-claim. That gave rise to all sort of prevailing party claims
$14,283.85 in Expert Fees Affirmed Even Though The Defense Made Modest 998 Offers. In Patel v. Delbecq, Case No. H034417 (6th Dist. Nov. 15, 2010) (unpublished), the defense finally won a jury trial in a case where they never hit plaintiffs’ car but allegedly drove dangerously enough to cause a tire blowout in a
Silent 998 Offer Came Back to Bite the Defense as Silence Proves Golden for Prevailing Party. Many of the decisions we examine have major object lessons for litigators to pay heed to. After all, we like to say that good case management skills are usually learned through mistakes. This next case illustrates this principle
Affirms $289,000 Costs Award and $1.6 Million Fee Award. In a long-running case that has produced several appellate opinions along the way, V3I v. Western Digital Corp., Case No. G041386 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2010) (unpublished) finally ran its course, with the final appeal being from a $289,000 costs award and
First District, Division 1 Faces Some Interesting Section 998 Wrinkles in a Joint and Several Defense Context. Wrinkles. Shar Pei. Wikipedia. Hats off to the First District, Division 1 for a very scholarly opinion centering on Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offers in a multiple defendant situation, even though the winning
$42,064 Fee Award and $3,583 Expert Witness Award Gets Reversed. The nice thing about posting on unpublished decisions (and we find an overwhelming number to be well reasoned) is that they always have pointers for litigators on what and what not to do. The next lessons involve satisfying mediation condition precedent clauses for fee
First District, Division 5, Except for a $49 Adjustment, Tells Everyone to Go Home But For a Minor $1,000 Appellate Sanctions. Salvio Street, LLC v. Lee, Case Nos. A122408/A123080 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 29, 2010) (unpublished) is an interesting case, not just for the legal issues, but because it demonstrates how pragmatic appellate
Fifth District agrees the Case is “screwed up.” The story arc of this opinion begins at a low point, and plummets. “What the heck?I?,” begins the Court of Appeal opinion. “At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’ We heartily agree.” Essex Insurance
Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules, Assuming 998 Offers Are Valid in a Certified Class Situation. Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., Case No. D054369 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2010) (certified for publication) is an interesting decision where significant fees were awarded in a class action involving a California consumer-shifting fee statute. However,
