Plaintiff Fails to Support 998 Reasonableness Challenge With Adequate Record. The Fourth District, Division 2 in Kalogirou v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. E049193 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 28, 2010) (unpublished) affirmed an award of postoffer costs to defendants under Code of Civil Procedure section 998.
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Plaintiff Can Defensively Block 998 Fee Shifting Outside the Costs Memorandum Decision, Even Though Undisclosed Costs Are Not Recoverable. Boy, oh boy, in between the Lakers-Celtics game tonight, we have decided to blog on a very interesting unpublished decision from the Fourth District, Division 2, which itself admits involves
Second District, Division 3 Also Finds 998 Fee Waiver In Not Illegal under California’s Lemon Law. The next case, involving the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offers and California consumer/civil fee shifting statutes, basically holds plaintiff to the bargain reached when he accepted the 998 offer made by defendants.
Second District, Division 7 Indicates It Will Not Follow Weinberg, But Does So On A Going Forward Basis. The next opinion is interesting to show how appellate courts, when rejecting one of their prior decisions for failing to consider an important argument, will apply its new perspective only on a prospective basis in order
Fourth District, Division 3 Holds Litigant Waited Too Long To Claim Costs After Resolution of Merits Appeal. In our category “Section 998,” we have explored the cost-shifting features of Code of Civil Procedure section 998—with expert witness fees being the most expensive costs usually at issue. However, section 998 does not state
Second District, Division 7 Examines the Interplay Between Two Statutory Schemes. There is a definite interplay between Civil Code section 1717 (allowing recovery to a prevailing party where there is a contractual fees clause) and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (California’s offer to judgment statute). Where a party might otherwise be considered
Great Nationwide Resource Guide on State-by-State Provisions. We have examined numerous cases on Code of Civil Procedure section 998, California’s cost-shifting offer of judgment provision. For those of you wanting to know if similar mechanisms exist in other states, see the State Offer of Judgment Provisions, a project of the Federal Civil Procedure
First District, Division 2 Finds Admissions in Case Management Conference Statement Established Vicarious Liability For Gauging 998 Offer’s Validity. Here is one for you personal injury practitioners, whether representing plaintiffs or defendants. Although unapportioned Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers are usually taboo, a prime exception occurs where the defendants are jointly
Plaintiff Possessed the Same Knowledge About Her Physical Condition, Such that Suppression of Defense Video Surveillance Did Not Nullify Prior 998 Offers as Being Made in “Bad Faith.” Courts do tend to review Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers in a pragmatic fashion . . . as the next personal injury case illustrates.
Second District, Division 7 Rejects that 998 Has Expert Work Timing Restrictions on Recovery of Expert Fees. Plaintiffs sued the owners of adjacent hillside parcels after the destruction wrought by a mudslide on plaintiff’ home. Eventually, a jury decided in favor of defendants. Because defendants beat prior Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers
