Cases: Section 998

Civil Code Section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 998: Poof! Substantial Fee/Cost Award Reversed Where Underlying Judgment Was Reversed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

    Fourth District, Division Three Finds That Abandonment of Action Must Be Clear Before Dismissal Is Entered; With Dismissal Gone, Fee/Cost Award Is Also Reversed.      California litigators frequently have heard the mantra that "cases are to be tried or heard on the merits." In line with that, there are corollary principles, such as pretrial […]

Civil Code Section 1717: Fees Are Not Awardable Where Plaintiff Dismisses Action With Prejudice After The Start of Trial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Second District, Division Four Also Rejects That Letter Containing Purported CCP Section 998 Offer Was Valid Where Opposing Party Not Given Full Statutory Period Within Which to Accept.      Presiding Justice Epstein, writing for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Division Four, recently authored an interesting opinion in which attorney’s fees were not allowed

Brother Losing Wrongful Death/Survival Action Tagged With Over $250,000 In Attorney’s Fees On Various Grounds

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Sustains Fee Award Based on Unruh Act and CCP section 998; CCP section 1026(b) Did Not Bar Imposition of Fees               Civil cases are very interesting affairs, with attorney’s fees awards based many times on variant statutory provisions.  Justice Moore, of our local Fourth District, Division 3, was the author

First District Vacates Attorney’s Fees and Expert Fees Awarded Against School District

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Panel Finds No Basis for Fee Award Because District Did Not Violate “Prompt Payment” Penalty Statute.             Public Contract Code section 7107 is a “prompt payment” statute specifying consequences for a public agency that withholds retention proceeds from a general contractor.  It basically provides that a public agency may withhold from

Cross-Complainant Owners, In Home Renovation Contract Dispute, Are “Prevailing Parties” And Were Not Answerable To Ambiguous CCP Section 998 Offer

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division One So Rules in Interpreting Civil Code section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure section 998.             The next case is a nice refresher on Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” principles and on clarity requirements for Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers.  (For more case discussion, see

CCP Section 998 Offers: Plaintiff, Who Won Judicially-Ordered Arbitration But Failed To Obtain A Jury Verdict Exceeding 998 Offer, Properly Assessed Costs

Cases: Section 998

First District, Division Five Provides a Nice Review of CCP 998 Principles in Affirming Trial Court Award of Costs to Defendant After Plaintiff Failed to Beat 998 Offer at Trial.             At some point, most litigators will (or should) become aware of Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a provision that allows

“Early Bird” CCP Section 998 Offers: Unreasonable Per Se Or Unreasonable Based on Facts and Circumstances?

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Third District Panel Splits Sharply on Reasonableness of 998 Offer Served With the Complaint Where No Formal Discovery Occurred.             The next case we discuss centers upon “early bird” Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers, particularly one that was served concurrently with service of the summons and complaint in a personal

CCP 998 Offers: Precisely Define How Fees And Costs Are To Be Handled … Or Be Surprised!

Cases: Section 998

Recent Second District Decision Illustrates the Pitfalls in Silence or Imprecisely Drafting 998 Offers.             In our section entitled “Cases:  Section 998,” we have discussed prior posts on Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which allows the parties to contractually allocate treatment of attorney’s fees and costs in settlement agreements or stipulations. 

Apples to Oranges: Civil Code Section 1717 “Prevailing Party” Guidelines Do Not Have Relevance In Determining Fee Recovery Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 998

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Standard of Review

Second District Reminds Us That the Two Concepts Are Distinct in Nature in Unpublished Decision.             Sometimes succinct opinions contain gems.  That happens to be the case with     Tennen v. Finstad, Case No. B202404 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 6, 2008) (unpublished).  This decision reinforces that “prevailing party” principles at issue

Scroll to Top