Cases: Section 998

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Because Defense Section 998 Offers Were Valid, Trial Judge Had To Restudy Costs And Fee Rulings To Determine If The First Defense Offer Was In Good Faith

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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             In Covert v. FCA USA, LLC, Case No. B303663 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 4, 2022) (unpublished), an automaker was found liable to the vehicle owner for $48,416 under a Song-Beverly Act lemon law case.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 […]

Section 998: Prevailing Defendant’s §998 Offer For 1.6% Of The Damages Request By Plaintiff Was Unreasonable

Cases: Section 998

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      The defendant in 18131 Ventura Blvd., LLC v. 5223 Linley, LLC, Case No. B307958 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished) won an easement interpretation dispute but only after the

Section 998, Workers’ Compensation: 2/2 DCA Decides § 998 Is To Be Applied Before Lab. Code § 3856 In Determining If 998 Offeror Obtained Postoffer Costs Such That A Workers’ Comp. Fee Recovery Or Lien Is Not Factored Into The Net Judgment Calculus

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Workers' Compensation

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

Section 998: Trial Court’s Granting Of Former Employer’s Motion To Tax Plaintiff’s Post-§ 998 Costs Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Accept § 998 Offer Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Section 998

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 B302178/B304054 (2d Dist., Div. 3 October 29, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued former employer for violations

Costs, Experts, Section 998: Trial Court’s Costs Award To Prevailing Plaintiffs, Which Accounted For Costs From Two Trials Where First Trial Resulted In Mistrial Due To Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Affirmed On Appeal

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

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

Costs, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: No Abuse Of Discretion In Attorney Fees And Costs Award Of $1,454,938.70 Against One Of Three Defendants, Without Apportionment, In Wrongful Death Case

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

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: $12,000 Pre-Litigation Offer, Iterated As A 998 Offer Four Months Later After Filing Of A Lawsuit, Was Reasonable And Supported Cost-Shifting In Low-Level Vehicular Personal Injury Case

Cases: Section 998

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

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

Scroll to Top