Cases: Section 998

CCP Section 998: Making A 998 Offer After Filing A Motion To Quash For Lack of Jurisdiction Does Not Constitute A “General Appearance”

Cases: Quashing/Lack of Jurisdiction, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Construes the Type of “Acts” Which Will Waive Jurisdictional Challenges.      For our purposes, the Fourth District, Division 1 has decided that Italian defendants’ making of a pretrial offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 does not waive motion to quash jurisdictional challenges, if the 998 offer was made after […]

Costs: First District, Division 5 Addresses Standards Governing Award of FEHA Expert Witness Costs To Winning Defendant

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Interaction of Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Also Explored.      This next case is a very scholarly review of the standards governing an award of expert witnesses fees as costs to a winning defendant in a FEHA action. It is Holman v. Altana Pharma US, Inc., Case Nos. A122783/A124451 (1st Dist., Div. 5

Section 998: Defendants Correctly Awarded Postoffer Costs

Cases: Section 998

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Fourth District, Division 2 in Kalogirou v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. E049193 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 28, 2010) (unpublished) affirmed an award of postoffer costs to defendants under Code of Civil Procedure section 998.

Section 998: “First Impression” Unpublished Case—Plaintiff Can Defeat 998 Cost Shifting By Presenting Pre-Offer Costs In Opposition To Tax Costs Motion, Rather Than Claiming As Routine Costs Memorandum

Cases: 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      Boy, oh boy, in between the Lakers-Celtics game tonight, we have decided to blog on a very interesting unpublished decision from the Fourth District, Division 2, which itself admits involves

Consumer Statutes And Section 998: Plaintiff’s Waiver Of Fees In Accepting 998 Offer Binds Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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.     

Section 998: Cost-Shifting Feature Of Statute Required Prevailing Litigant To Move For Costs Under CRC 3.1700 Or Appeal Refusal To Award Costs

Cases: Section 998

  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

CCP § 998 and CC § 1717: $60,270 Fee Award Affirmed Where Plaintiff Only Recovered $7,477.01

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  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

Section 998: Federal Civil Procedure Committee and American College Of Trial Lawyers’ Surveys Of State Offer of Judgment Provisions

Cases: Section 998

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

998 Offers: No Apportionment Necessary Between Defendants Where Liability Is Joint And Several/Vicarious In Nature

Cases: Section 998

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

Scroll to Top