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 […]
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
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
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
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 May 26, 2021) (published), which was unpublished when first issued on April 30, 2021.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
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
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
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 Apr. 30, 2021) (unpublished) solely related to a CCP § 998 battle, specifically, whether a section 998 offer precluded entry
Challenge Never Raised Below And Doctor Took A Contrary Stance Below. In McCarley v. Anesthesia Service Medical Group, Case No. D074353 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 20, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff won a substantial medical malpractice verdict against a doctor, who rejected a CCP § 998 offer which was beaten by plaintiff after trial and
Plaintiff’s Failure To File A Notice Of Appeal On The PostJudgment Award Deprived Appellate Court Of Jurisdiction. In Nash v. Romano, Case No. B303765 (2d Dist., Div. 8 April 12, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant sued her landlords after she broke her ankle while stepping on an allegedly unstable backyard paver. The jury returned
