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 In a very interesting unpublished case, plaintiffs suffered a nonsuit after the trial court struck a medical expert’s testimony based upon the expert not giving certain causation opinions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 […]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
