Cases: Section 998

Section 998: Only Mentioning CCP § 998 Or Allowing Judgment To Be Entered, Without More Precise Instructions For Accepting 998 Offer, Does Not Render A 998 Offer Valid

Cases: Section 998

4/1 DCA Provides Further Guidance On Drafting Effective 998 Offers.             Drafting effective CCP § 998 offers can be tricky, as the 4/1 DCA recognized in Finlan v. Chase, Case No. D078410 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 15, 2021) (published).  A plaintiff lost some hefty costs and expert witness fees by not providing specific acceptance […]

Costs, Deadlines, Experts, Section 998: 4/2 DCA Dismisses Defendants’ Cross-Appeal Of Trial Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion To Tax Majority Of $139,951.97 In Costs And Fees Sought By Defendants Under § 998

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Experts, Cases: Section 998

Defendants’ Cross-Appeal Was Untimely, And A Separate Appeal, Not A Cross-Appeal, Was Required For Challenging Trial Court’s Order As It Related To Defendants’ Request For Expert Witness Fees.             In Ramirez v. Barajas, Case No. E071558 (4th Dist., Div. 2 September 13, 2021) (unpublished), personal injury plaintiff, suing defendants for $1.4 million in damages, rejected

Employment, Section 998: Section 998 Offer Is Invalid If Employer Did Not Attempt To Pay Undisputed Wage Amounts Before Sending Section 998 Offer

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Timing Is Everything—Pay Undisputed Amount Before The 998 Offer Or Pay Later/Issue A New 998 Offer.             Wasito v. Kazali, Case No. B308826 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 31, 2021) (published) is must reading for employers wishing to resolve unpaid wage claims through a CCP § 998 offer where undisputed wages are due.             In

Section 998: Defendants’ Section 998 Offer Requesting Indemnification (And, Implicitly, Defense) Of Unspecified Non-Parties Made The Offer Too Vague For Enforcement

Cases: Section 998

That Conclusion Erased $5,360 Expert Witness Fees Award Against Plaintiffs And In Favor Of Defendants.             In Khosravan v. Chevron Corp., Case No. B307482 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 6, 2021) (published), the Chevron Defendants won a summary judgment against plaintiffs after sending an unaccepted CCP §998 offer to dismiss for a waiver of costs

Experts, Section 998: Trial Court’s Denial Of Plaintiffs’ Motion To Tax $27,926.41 In Defendant’s § 998 Expert Witness Fees Affirmed On Appeal.

Cases: Experts, Cases: Section 998

The Party Moving To Tax § 998 Expert Fees Has The Burden Of Showing That The Fees Are Either Not Properly Chargeable Or Unreasonable, Which Plaintiffs Failed To Do, And Substantial Evidence Supported The Trial Court’s Finding That It Was Not Inequitable To Award Expert Costs Against Plaintiffs.             In Mass v. City of San

Experts, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 1/5 DCA Affirms Denial Of Attorney Fees To Elder Abuse Act Plaintiff And Denial Of § 998 Expert Witness Fees To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Experts, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Failed To Prove Harm As Required Under Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.5(a) Because The Approximate $400,000 In Annuities Upon Which He Based Harm Had Been Returned Pursuant To A Probate Court Order More Than A Year Before Trial, But Defendants’ § 998 Offer Was Not Reasonable Nor Made In Good Faith Given The

Section 998: Arriagarazo Decision Of April 30, 2021 Now Published

Cases: Section 998

Where Section 998 Offer Did Not Expressly Reference Dismissal Of Action, Entry Of Judgment By Accepting Offerees Was Proper.             In our April 30, 2021 post, we discussed Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C090980 (3d Dist. May 26, 2021) (published), which was unpublished when first issued on April 30, 2021.  It

Consumer Statutes, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Reduced Song-Beverly Attorney Fees By Almost $100,000 Because Plaintiffs Rejected § 998 Offer That Was Only $8,500 Less Than Ultimate Settlement

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Court Improperly Cut Off Fees Incurred After Plaintiffs’ Rejection Of The § 998 Offer Instead Of Engaging In A Lodestar Analysis Of The Entire Case Pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d).             In Reck v. FCA US LLC, Case No. A157966 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2021) (published), the trial court awarded

Section 998: Trial Court Order Awarding Postoffer Costs Against Prevailing Song-Beverly Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal Because Plaintiff Failed To Beat Defendant’s § 998 Offer At Trial

Cases: Section 998

Requirement That Plaintiff Sign A General Release Did Not Invalidate The § 998 Offer As The General Release Clearly And Unambiguously Applied Only To The Claims In The Underlying Action.             Plaintiff received a $17,259.19 jury verdict in his Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act violations (California’s lemon law; Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.) action against

Section 998: Where CCP § 998 Offer Did Not Clearly Negate Contemplation Of Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Accepting Party, There Was No Basis To Vacate Judgment To Do Differently

Cases: Section 998

Words To The Wise—As Offering Parties, Make Clear What Triggers Conclusion—If Not, Entry Of Judgment May Not Result Even Under Ambiguous Terms.             Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C090980 (3d Dist. Apr. 30, 2021) (unpublished) solely related to a CCP § 998 battle, specifically, whether a section 998 offer precluded entry

Scroll to Top