Plaintiff Only Recovered $2,229, And CCP § 473 Relief Did Not Resonate.
We have to say that in pro per plaintiffs need to beware when confronted with CCP § 998 offers—even though our courts are open to all, in pro per representation is fraught with perils, as Jones v. Pierce, Case No. A139665 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 30, 2015) (unpublished) illustrates.
In this one, plaintiff sued for negligence arising from a vehicle accident, but rejected a $7,500 998 offer from defendant. However, plaintiff only recovered $2,229 after a jury trial. The trial judge awarded 998 fee-shifting costs of $33,198.06, after plaintiff failed to timely move to tax costs but making a request for mercy under CCP § 473.
Didn’t resonate with the appellate court. The failure to file a motion to tax costs constitutes a waiver of the right to object to a costs bill. (Douglas v. Willis, 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 289-290 (1994).) In order to counteract this obvious waiver, plaintiff tried to use the section 473 escape valve because he did not have an attorney. However, this bad assumption of risk did not work—“when a litigant accepts the risks of proceeding without counsel, he or she is stuck with the outcome, and has no greater opportunity to cast off an unfavorable judgment than he or she would if represented by counsel.” (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens, 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1413 (2011).)