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
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.
Fourth District, Division Three Rules the Offer in Uncertain in an Unpublished Opinion. One of the practice treatises used by many California practitioners has a sample Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer, which is a cost-shifting mechanism designed to encourage settlement and to penalize a party who fails to accept
Second District Reminds Us That the Two Concepts Are Distinct in Nature in Unpublished Decision.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
First District Reverses Fee Sanctions Award and Award to State Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, But Affirms 998 Award to State. This next case establishes that fee sanctions must have a firm basis in legislatively-authorized statutes (or implementing rules) that have solid due process protections. Relying only on inherent
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Costs Award Under Section 998 Where Appealing Defendant Failed to Present Adequate Appellate Record to Rebut the Winning Nature of an Initial 998 Offer. Robles v. AutoZone, Inc., Case No. D049259 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 22, 2008) (unpublished) is a nice primer on burden of
