Cases: Section 998

Section 998: Where Respondent Made A Counteroffer to A Section 998 Offer, Lower Court Erred In Entering Judgment Under This Scenario

Cases: Section 998

Judgment Was Void On Its Face.                A judgment based on acceptance of a CCP § 998 offer was found void because the accepting party made a counteroffer in Endrawes v. Mitchell, Case No. B330916 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 16, 2024) (unpublished).  There, a defendant accepted a 998 offer but added language indicating appellant

Section 998: This Provision Does Not Provide An Independent Basis For Fee Entitlement, You Either Have It Or Not Under Fee Entitlement Predicates

Cases: Section 998

Nothing In Accepted 998 Offer Or Subsequent Settlement Agreement Had A Fee Entitlement In Them.                We have always blogged that a threshold issue is whether a claimant has a fee entitlement basis.  If you do not, you lose.  That was the case in Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C097296 (3d

Probate, Section 998: No Matter Whether Probate Code Provisions Or CCP § 998 Applied. Lower Court Properly Granted Expert Witness Fees To Attorney Who Winded Down Deceased Attorney Friend’s Practice In Fee Division Battle With Friend’s Administrator

Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 998

In Dicta, Appellate Court Suggested 998 Offers May Not Be Barred In Probate Litigation.                Estate of Howell, Case No. D081920 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting reading for probate practitioners.                This case involved a battle over attorney fee compensation to be divided between the administrator wife of a deceased

Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff’s Jury Trial Win Almost Completely Absorbed By Successful Defense 998 Offer After Reduction For Post-Offer Expenses

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

Also, Plaintiff’s Suit Benefitted Herself, So No Section 1021.5 Fees Were Warranted.                Nairobi v. Watkins, Case Nos. A164665 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2024) (unpublished) shows the potency of a successful defense CCP § 998 offer:  plaintiff’s $101,768.89 jury award got reduced to just $3,772.87.  The lower court also denied plaintiff’s

Section 998: 998 Offer Calling For Dismissal Of Action With Prejudice, Not Entry of Judgment, Is Valid

Cases: Section 998

This Means The Lower Court Needed To Honor the $350,000 Accepted Offer And Enter Judgment Thereon.                In Chiu v. Wu, Case No. H050642 (6th Dist. Mar. 6, 2024) (unpublished), Plaintiffs accepted defendant’s $350,000 CCP § 998 offer calling for dismissal of action with prejudice, not entry of a judgment.  After some procedural gaffes (including

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

Scroll to Top