Cases: Section 998

Requests For Admission, Section 998: Plaintiffs’ 998 Offer Was Invalid And Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Properly Denied

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Performance Components Of 998 Offer Were Too Ambiguous; RFAs Were Either Of No Substantial Importance Or Not Unreasonably Denied.             In Jarecki v. Zitter, Case No. D078314 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a drainage dispute developed between property owners and downslope neighbors, resulting in plaintiffs losing a trespass claim but prevailing on […]

Civil Rights, Section 998: Summary Judgment Winning Defendants Properly Denied FEHA Attorney’s Fees And Routine Costs Because Case Was Not Frivolous

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 998

Also, FEHA And Non-FEHA Claims Overlapped Such That Costs Recovery Was Foreclosed.             In Liza v. CKE Restaurant Holdings, Case No. B313111 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 25, 2023) (unpublished), defendant won a summary judgment against plaintiff’s FEHA and non-FEHA claims, although they did overlap.  The lower court later denied the defense request

Section 998: Defense Was Not Exposed To Substantial Prejudgment Interest Or Expert Fees In Rejecting Plaintiffs’ CCP § 998 Offers After Plaintiffs Received Substantial Jury Verdicts Well Over The 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

Multiple Offers With No Separate Acceptance Lines Was Invalid.             CCP § 998 offers involve very careful planning.  Multiple offers and acceptance line principles often will derail offers made with the best intentions.  Little v. Singh, Case No. F083989 (5th Dist. July 31, 2023) (unpublished) illustrates these lessons well.             There, plaintiffs obtained a substantial

Section 998: Third District Reverses $98,823.55 Fees/Costs Award To Lemon Law Plaintiffs Because The Settlement Reached After Plaintiffs’ Rejection Of Two 998 Offers Constituted A Judgment With A Principal Amount Below That Of The Final 998 Offer.

Cases: Section 998

Dissenting Opinion Held That Section 998’s Cost-Shifting Provisions Do Not Apply Where A Plaintiff’s Less Favorable Result Came About Through Settlement Of The Case Rather Than A Litigated Result Following Trial Or Arbitration.             In Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. C090463 (Third Dist., April 11, 2023) (published) defendant made two Code Civ.

Costs, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Section 998, Trespass: Prevailing Defendant/Cross-Complainant Obtains Attorney’s Fees Under Trespass Fee Shifting Statute Despite Receiving Nominal Damages And Also Receives Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998, Cases: Trespass

Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Denied Private Attorney General Fee Request In Opinion With Several Cross-Over Issues.              Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area etc. v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Case No. A162702 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion with many cross-over issues as identified in our main title to this post.             In

Section 998: Smalley Opinion Is Now Published

Cases: Section 998

Shows How A Nicely Crafted 998 Offer Can Benefit A Defendant In A Lemon Law Case.             In a December 13, 2022 post, we reviewed Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc., a 4/3 DCA unpublished case at the time which showed how a defendant in a lemon law case crafted a nice CCP § 998 offer which

Section 998: Subaru’s 998 Offer Was Reasonable And Made In Good Faith, Such That Plaintiff Properly Only Awarded Pre-offer Costs And Subaru Was Properly Awarded Post-offer Costs

Cases: Section 998

Plaintiff’s Appeal Of Order Staying Fee Motion To Determine 998 Offer Validity Was Non-appealable, But Validity Of The Offer Means That No Post-Offer Fees Are Due to Plaintiff On Remand (Likely).             Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case Nos. G059904/G060441 (4th Dist., Div. 3 December 13, 2022) (unpublished) is complementary of our July 5,

Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff Properly Denied CCP 1021.5 Fees And $700,000 Section 998 Fees In Favor Of Some Defendants Reversed

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998

No Public Benefit Conferred By Misleading Proposition 65 Temporary Warnings, And 998 Offer Releases Were Overbroad.      In Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, Case Nos. B309227 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 26, 2022) (published), defendants properly won a summary judgment in a Proposition 65 case when new regulations

Scroll to Top