Cases: Section 998

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Because Section 998 Does Apply To Lemon Law Cases, Fee/Costs Award Had To Be Reduced By Post-Fees Covered By Defense 998 Offer

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

However, Majority And Dissenting Justices Disagreed On Whether Section 998 Applied To A Litigation Ended Through A Settlement.             Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B315884 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2024) (published) is an interesting decision involving the interplay between the Song-Beverly Act “lemon law” fee/costs shifting provisions and pretrial offers under […]

Costs, Section 998: Ouf-Of-State Deposition and Expert Witness Costs Were Justified

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Offer Was Proper, So Expert Witness Expenses Properly Awarded.             In Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center, Case No. F085746 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court and appellate courts affirmed certain costs for prevailing defendants for certain out-of-state deposition expenses and expert witness costs.  Those determinations were affirmed on appeal.  Because

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Finding Employer Alter Ego Was Dismissed Under Section 998 Offer And Then Awarding Reduced Fees Against Employer For Unpaid Overtime Employee Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

In The End, Only $10,000 In Fees Awarded Against Employer.             This next case addresses many issues we have posted on over the years—specificity in CCP § 998 offers and seeking reasonable fees on claims which should be allocated but are not.  Wu v. ABC Lucky Transportation, Inc., Case Nos. B323494/B326800 (2d Dist., Div. 1

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Section 998: Kinney Opinion Now Certified For Publication

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Opinion Illustrates How Valid Section 998 Offer Can Reduce Fee Exposure Under A Fee Shifting Statute.             On December 31, 2023, we posted on Kinney v. City of Corona, Case No. E079840, which was unpublished at the time.  We can now report that Kinney was certified for publication on January 24, 2024.  It demonstrates how

Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $43,300 Fee Award Under California Public Records Act Statute Was Justified

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

. . . However, Fee Award Had To Be Reduced Down To $2,475 Based on Successful Defense § 988 Offer With Respect To Post-Offer Fees.             On appeal, you win some, you lose some, or the appellate court modifies judgments in varying amounts.  That third result is what occurred in Kinney v. City of Corona,

Requests For Admission, Section 998: $500,000 Costs Of Proof Sanctions Award Reversed And Failure To Consider Pre-Judgment Impact Of Defense Section 998 Was Further Error

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Remands Were In Order Because Costs Of Proof Sanctions Were Not Properly Tethered To The Proof Of The Matters Denied And Defense Section 998 Offer Impact Should Not Have Been Held In Abeyance Pending Appeal             Well, now that we are past the Thanksgiving holidays, the defense must be giving thanks for the results in

Costs, Section 998: In A Dispute Spanning About A Decade, Court Of Appeal Resolves Costs Issues Under General Principles And CCP § 998

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Bottom Line Is That Some Routine Costs May Have To Be Paid On Remand By Prevailing Defendant.             Hussein v. Razin, Case Nos. G061491/G061681 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished) is a decades-long dispute which finally resulted in plaintiff failing to prove his claims, in plaintiff defeating cross-claims against the defendant/cross-complainant, and with

Requests For Admission, Section 998: RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Improperly Denied, But Defense CCP § 998 Costs Were Correct

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Playing Cute With Business Records Admissibility Issues Might Lead To RFA Sanctions.             In Vargas v. Gallizzi, Case No. B317540 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 13, 2023) (published), personal injury plaintiffs prevailed against defendant but only obtained jury verdicts amounting to $30,000 based on a prior appeal and subsequent jury verdict.  But that then led

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

Scroll to Top