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 On December 31, 2023, we posted on Kinney v. City of Corona, Case No. E079840, which was unpublished at the time.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 […]
. . . 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,
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
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 G061491/G061681 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished) is a decades-long dispute which finally resulted in plaintiff failing to prove his claims, in plaintiff defeating cross-claims against the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
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
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 In Jarecki v. Zitter, Case No. D078314 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a drainage dispute developed between property owners and downslope neighbors, resulting in plaintiffs losing a trespass claim but prevailing on
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 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 25, 2023) (unpublished), defendant won a summary judgment against plaintiff’s FEHA and non-FEHA claims, although they did overlap.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
Plaintiff’s Later Accepted 998 Offer Did Not Make Things More Valuable, Because The Defense Rejected 998 Offer Did Allow For Reasonable Fee Recovery. In the CCP § 998 offer area, we see cases with interesting facts, and we have them in Elmi v. Related Management Company, L.P., Case No. G061379 (4th Dist., Div. 3
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
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.
