Costs And Fees After The Time-Cut Off Were To Be Stricken On Remand. Where an unambiguous CCP § 998 offer has a time cut-off with respect to awarding fees and costs, that will be legally honored. That is what occurred in Olbert v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. B327402 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. […]
Both Sides Appealed, But Their Challenges Were Unsuccessful. Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Case No. B323715 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 30, 2024) (published) involved a long-standing dispute between plaintiff T.J. Simers, a controversial columnist, and defendant L.A. Times involving constructive termination, age discrimination, and disability discrimination claims under FEHA. Needless to
However, Plaintiff Did Pay The Other Side $118,372.65 In Routine Costs. In Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates, Case No. E081228 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 19, 2024) (published), Quality leased 73 acres from Riverside Mining, operating a quarry on the land. Quality brought a civil lawsuit against Riverside Mining for infringing its leasehold,
Costs Shifting Frequently Can Be The Result With A Well-Crafted 998 Offer. Plaintiff student sued Loyola Marymount University and Los Angeles Television Access Corporation (Access) for premises liability and negligence after Access’ photography light fell on student. After a bench trial, University was held blameless, and student won $22,834 in damages against Access. However,
The Defense Did Not Timely Withdraw Its Offer Before Acceptance, And The 998 Offer Did Contemplate Entry Of A Judgment Based On The Parties’ Conduct. Courts encourage settlements and acceptance of CCP § 998 offers, if structured correctly. They generally do not honor untimely attempted withdrawals of those offers after acceptance. That is what
Judgment Was Void On Its Face. A judgment based on acceptance of a CCP § 998 offer was found void because the accepting party made a counteroffer in Endrawes v. Mitchell, Case No. B330916 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 16, 2024) (unpublished). There, a defendant accepted a 998 offer but added language indicating appellant
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
