Although Other Settlement Procedures Could Be Utilized, Section 998 Did Not Allow Entry Of Judgment Based On A Less Than Clear Settlement. Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc., Case No. A161923 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 25, 2022) (published) should remind all practitioners that CCP § 998 cannot be used as a surrogate method […]
Beyond That, The Motion Was Not Filed On 16-Court Days’ Required Notice. This case shows how a litigant and his attorney’s prior actions can have a dramatic impact on a later attempt to obtain more attorney’s fees through a noticed fee motion. In Baiocchi v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. G059143 (4th Dist.,
Bad Faith And Lack Of Specificity Arguments Rejected. California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, known as the Lemon Law, has a pro-plaintiff attorney’s fees provision. However, Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can tilt the risk against a defendant by cutting off post-offer fees and costs if the 998 offer is properly crafted. Plus, the
Costs Award To One Defendant Included $209,886.89 In Expert Witness Fees Because Plaintiff Had Rejected And Failed To Beat That Defendant’s Section 998 Offer Of $50,000 Plus Waiver Of Fees And Costs. This next case provides a cautionary tale about the importance of giving careful consideration to reasonable section 998 offers – especially when
Plaintiff Winning Some Money Entitled To Routine Costs, But Defense Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees And Some Other Routine Costs Relating To Fee And Expert Witness Work, Some Other CCP § 998. Mike Murphy’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fineline Industries, Inc., Case No. F080503 (5th Dist. Apr. 13, 2022) (unpublished) is a good opinion to
Panoply Of Issues Addressed In This One. In Bogdan v. Polak, Case Nos. B306264/B309780 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 6, 2022) (unpublished), landlord won a gnarly retaliatory eviction lawsuit against tenant based on some nonsuits and an eventual jury trial. In postjudgment proceedings, the lower court denied landlord’s attorney’s fees request as untimely, awarded
Section 998 Offer By The Defense Was Too Uncertain—A “Moving Target.” In Duff v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. D078100 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2022) (published), the 4/1 DCA departed company from its prior approach as far as awarding lemon law fees to a prevailing plaintiff under Civil Code
Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Action Without Terms Of Handwritten Agreement Being Met And Property Was Never Transferred. In Debenedetti v. Debenedetti, Case No. A162074 (1st Dist., Div. 4 January 24, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff brothers, who were successor co-trustees of their father’s trust, filed an action against their brother for breach of a promissory note securing
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
