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 July 31, 2023) (unpublished) illustrates these lessons well.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.
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 v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Case No. A162702 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion with many cross-over issues as identified in our main title to this post.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
Lemon Law Plaintiff Obtained Significantly Less Fees Based On Rejected Section 998 Defense Offer. On December 30, 2022, we posted on Chen v. BMW of North America, a Sixth District unpublished opinion in which a significantly reduced lemon law fees award to a plaintiff, who rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, was found
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 In a December 13, 2022 post, we reviewed Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc., a 4/3 DCA unpublished case at the time which showed how a defendant in a lemon law case crafted a nice CCP § 998 offer which
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 G059904/G060441 (4th Dist., Div. 3 December 13, 2022) (unpublished) is complementary of our July 5,
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
Mischief Would Result If This Was Not The Consequence. In Trujillo v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B314042 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 27, 2022) (published), a defendant moved for summary judgment and made a CCP 998 offer days before the hearing. The trial court orally granted the summary judgment motion, with
Otherwise, Unspecified Settlement Terms Are Too Uncertain In Nature. K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., Case Nos. D0759571/D076833 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 25, 2022) (published) holds that if you, as a CCP offeror, want a settlement agreement or Civil Code section 1542 release as part of the 998 offer, you better
