Nothing In Accepted 998 Offer Or Subsequent Settlement Agreement Had A Fee Entitlement In Them. We have always blogged that a threshold issue is whether a claimant has a fee entitlement basis. If you do not, you lose. That was the case in Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C097296 (3d […]
In Dicta, Appellate Court Suggested 998 Offers May Not Be Barred In Probate Litigation. Estate of Howell, Case No. D081920 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting reading for probate practitioners. This case involved a battle over attorney fee compensation to be divided between the administrator wife of a deceased
Offer Was Nothing More Than A Bare Promise To Pay In The Future, With A Dismissal Rather Than A Judgment Required, So It Was An Infirm Offer—It Could Not Be Valued Monetarily. In Gavola v. CSJ Services, Inc., Case No. G062457 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 16, 2024) (unpublished), defendant transferee in a fraudulent
Also, Plaintiff’s Suit Benefitted Herself, So No Section 1021.5 Fees Were Warranted. Nairobi v. Watkins, Case Nos. A164665 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2024) (unpublished) shows the potency of a successful defense CCP § 998 offer: plaintiff’s $101,768.89 jury award got reduced to just $3,772.87. The lower court also denied plaintiff’s
After Obtaining A Total Jury Award Of $54,258, After An Offset For This Amount, Tenants Owed Defendants $510,828.54 In Fees And Costs For Rejecting Substantial 998 Defense Offers. If there is ever a case which shows how plaintiffs need to seriously evaluate CCP § 998 offers, McAdoo v. Wellington Prop. Co., Case Nos. A163856
This Means The Lower Court Needed To Honor the $350,000 Accepted Offer And Enter Judgment Thereon. In Chiu v. Wu, Case No. H050642 (6th Dist. Mar. 6, 2024) (unpublished), Plaintiffs accepted defendant’s $350,000 CCP § 998 offer calling for dismissal of action with prejudice, not entry of a judgment. After some procedural gaffes (including
Costs Award Of $484,834.16 Affirmed On Appeal, Mainly Expert Witness Fees. CCP § 998 can be a game changer, as Oshodin v. Fire Ins. Exchange, Case No. B319043 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished) demonstrates. What happened here was that plaintiff rejected a 998 offer for $25,000, although they had a $1
However, Majority And Dissenting Justices Disagreed On Whether Section 998 Applied To A Litigation Ended Through A Settlement. Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B315884 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2024) (published) is an interesting decision involving the interplay between the Song-Beverly Act “lemon law” fee/costs shifting provisions and pretrial offers under
Section 998 Offer Was Proper, So Expert Witness Expenses Properly Awarded. In Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center, Case No. F085746 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court and appellate courts affirmed certain costs for prevailing defendants for certain out-of-state deposition expenses and expert witness costs. Those determinations were affirmed on appeal. Because
In The End, Only $10,000 In Fees Awarded Against Employer. This next case addresses many issues we have posted on over the years—specificity in CCP § 998 offers and seeking reasonable fees on claims which should be allocated but are not. Wu v. ABC Lucky Transportation, Inc., Case Nos. B323494/B326800 (2d Dist., Div. 1
