Cases: Section 998

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             On December 31, 2023, we posted on Kinney v. City of Corona, Case No. E079840, which was unpublished at the time.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

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

Scroll to Top