Cases: Section 998 – Page 40 – Cal Attorneys Fees

998 Offers, CA Tort Claims and Civil Rights Fees: Second District, Division 1 Faces A Potpourri Of Legal Issues On A Hefty ADA Civil Rights Fee Award

June 21, 2009

Unpublished Decision Faces Some Interesting Fee-Shifting Issues In ADA Case. Many of the California intermediate appellate unpublished decisions we examine have some very interesting legal issues for jurists to grapple with and resolve. The next one is no exception, containing some gnarly fee-shifting issues that involve Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (pretrial offer

Costs After 998 Offer Rejected: Losing Plaintiff In Toxic Mold Case Hit With Costs Of $331,167.52

Cases: Section 998

May 29, 2009

Second District, Division 4 Rejects Plaintiff’s Protest to Cost Award, After Defense Prevailed and Recouped Expert Fees Through 998 Cost Shifting. Co-contributors Marc and Mike have litigated several cases (usually, fraud or nondisclosure cases) in which plaintiffs have attempted to recover damages for exposure to “toxic mold.” These cases are extremely expert intensive,

CCP Section 998: Make Sure Offers Are Targeted Against Specific Defendants And Are Certain In Nature

Cases: Section 998

May 12, 2009

Second District, Division 6 Reinforces the Lesson in Workers’ Comp Lien Dispute. We have, on many occasions, discussed Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a fee-shifting statute based upon an offer of compromise. (See our category “Section 998” for more information on this area of the law.) Two of the things that must be

Section 998: Plaintiff With Unity of Interest Cannot Reject 998 Offer Without Requesting Clarification From Offeror

Cases: Section 998

April 16, 2009

Third District Reaffirms Validity of Peterson in Unpublished Decision Involving Individual Plaintiff Who Could Compromise Both Personal and Representative Issues. In Van Alstyne v. Carter, Case No. C056440 (3d Dist. Apr. 14, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a crop damage case involving $1,200 in damages and an injunctive request after defendants defensed plaintiff through

998 Offers: Failure To Consider Pre-Offer Costs Invalidated Trial Court’s Costs Award

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

March 6, 2009

Second District, Division 7 Finds Lower Court Erred in Its Application of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 998 and 1032. In our category “Section 998,” we have explored numerous cases that discuss the operation of Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a pretrial offer to compromise mechanism that can operate to deny post-offer fees

CCP 998 Offers: Later 998 Offers Extinguish Prior 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

February 6, 2009

Second District, Division 1 Follows Palmer‘s Bright-Line Rule. In a very interesting unpublished case, plaintiffs suffered a nonsuit after the trial court struck a medical expert’s testimony based upon the expert not giving certain causation opinions during his deposition, even though plaintiffs’ counsel had provided notice three months before trial that causation would be

Prevailing Individual Defendant In Employment Retaliation Case Awarded Substantial Routine Costs After Rejected 998 Offer Of $1.179 Million 998 Offer Found Reasonable In Nature

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

January 26, 2009

Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Costs Award in Favor of Winning Individual Defendant. If you are a plaintiff suing for employment retaliation, do not think that the suit carries little risks. Routine, non-fee costs of a substantial nature can still be assessed against you. Also, you as the plaintiff need to seriously evaluate

CCP Section 1021.4: Pedestrian Skater Sustains $90,000 Fee Award For Winning Jury Verdict Arising Out Of Drunk Driving Negotiated Criminal Settlement

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 14, 2009

Second District, Division Seven Also Finds That Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Too Uncertain to Enforce. The next case involves a personal injury case, involving an interesting discussion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4’s fee-shifting provision and the uncertain nature of the defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer involving other litigation lurking

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

December 13, 2008

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

November 26, 2008

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