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
Part 2 of 2: Second Ten Grouping—Nos. 1-10. We already gave you our top 11-20 decisions previously this month. As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of
Second District, Division 5 Affirms Routine Costs Awarded to Defendant. Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers are tricky. They require careful evaluation when received. In the next case, plaintiff—not by much—failed to prevail against a 998 offer and was hit with an adverse costs award. Loser raised a lot of arguments on appeal,
Substantial Fee Award Reversed Because Fees Provision Did Not Reach Noncontract Recovery, While Rest of Trial Court’s Fee/Costs Orders Affirmed on Appeal. In Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B207273 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished), Borrower voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his equitable, statutory and breach of contract claims,
Second District, Division 4 Opts to Create “Bright Line” Rule in this Case Involving First Impression Issue. So what happens when a defendant makes two separate pretrial settlement offers under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 but withdraws the second offer. Against which offer, if either, is the ultimate judgment measured for purpose of
First District, Division 1 Applies Lehto/Strauss to 998 Offers Made to Sued Insureds Rather that Offer Made Directly to Insurer. Both Lehto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 31 Cal.App.4th 60, 72 (1994) and Strauss v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 26 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021-1022 (1994) held that an insurer has no “good faith” duty to agree to,
Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision. Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law. In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,
Second District, Division 2 Rejects Suggestion Trial Court Cannot Award 998 Costs. This next one really involves a power challenge—can a trial court award postarbitration costs to a winning arbitration party based on a rejected Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer? You betcha, ruled the appellate court in the next case we
Third District Finds Miller Rule Also Applies to Prevailing 998 Defendant. In Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 147 Cal.App.4th 451 (2007), the Third District Court of Appeal decided that the availability of expert witness costs in a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action involving an injured railroad employee filed in state court
