Plaintiff Did Not Move To Tax Costs, Such That The Offset Was Proper. In Maximo v. Threatt, Case No. B301735 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 19, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff won $22,260 in an automobile personal injury case, but it did not exceed the defense CCP § 998 offer. The trial court entered judgment for […]
Case Deals With Lemon Law Section 998 Offer Terms and Validity. In our January 4, 2022 post, we posted on Covert v. FCA USA, LLC, Case No. B303663 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 4, 2022), unpublished at the time. It considered CCP § 998 offers in a lemon law case, specifically what terms are appropriate
Costs And Fee Awards Will Have To Be Reexamined. In Covert v. FCA USA, LLC, Case No. B303663 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 4, 2022) (unpublished), an automaker was found liable to the vehicle owner for $48,416 under a Song-Beverly Act lemon law case. However, earlier, automaker made two separate CCP § 998 offers
Denial of Defense Summary Judgment Motion And Trial Judge’s Remarks That Colorable Arguments Were Made For Interpretation Of An Easement Cemented The Result. The defendant in 18131 Ventura Blvd., LLC v. 5223 Linley, LLC, Case No. B307958 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished) won an easement interpretation dispute but only after the
2/2 DCA Reconciled Two Statutory Schemes In Coming To Its Conclusion. In Oakes v. Progressive Transportation Services, Case No. B305535 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2021) (partially published; 998 discussion published), a plaintiff employee was hurt by an employee of another company in a rear-end car accident, and plaintiff former employer’s workers compensation
Former Employer Had The Burden Of Proving A Valid § 998 Offer Had Been Made, But Belatedly Attached The § 998 Offer To Its Reply Papers Instead Of Its Moving Papers In Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Case Nos. B302178/B304054 (2d Dist., Div. 3 October 29, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued former employer for violations
Trial Court’s Order Awarding Costs Did Not Operate As An Improper Reconsideration Of A Previous Order, And Defendants Failed To Support With Any Authority Their Contention That Plaintiffs Could Not Recover Fees Where Their Attorney Caused Mistrial. In Esparza v. Win Distribution, Case No. E072880 (4th Dist., Div. 2 October 25, 2021) (unpublished), the
Waiver Of Costs/Malicious Prosecution Claims Was A Valid Offer Given Offer Was Two Years Into The Litigation. In Dell v. Parmar, Case No. E073851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished), a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case lost a jury verdict after rejecting a defense section 998 motion to waive costs and
Apportionment Of Attorney Fees Was Not Feasible As Plaintiffs’ Efforts Against The Defendants Were Inextricably Intertwined, And The Case Could Not Have Been Presented Without Significant Expert Testimony To Determine Who Was Legally Responsible. In Hatcher v. Powell, Case No. B302730 (2d Dist., Div. 6 September 27, 2021) (unpublished), four defendants were sued in
Section 998 Test Focuses On Objective Reasonableness, Not Plaintiff’s Subjective Perception Of The Offer’s Fairness. In Mkhitarian v. Jackson, Case No. B306198 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 20, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff in a low level, soft issue vehicular injury case rejected both a pre-trial informal offer and subsequent CCP § 998 offer for $12,000
