Equity, Section 998, Settlement: Trial Court’s Refusal To Vacate A Judgment Based On 998 Offers Allegedly Not Consented To By Plaintiff’s Counsel Was Reversed On Appeal

Lower Court Did Not Evaluate Under Inherent Authority Of The Court Standards, So A Revisit Was In Order.

In Chen v. Asian Square, Inc., Case No. H052309 (6^th Dist. Feb. 25, 2026) (unpublished), within hours of defendant accepting plaintiffs’ CCP § 998 offers, plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendant that plaintiffs had not provided informed consent for the offers.  Judgments were entered in line with the offers.  Plaintiffs brought a motion to vacate the judgments under a court’s inherent authority to vacate dismissals under CCP § 283 and under CCP § 473(b).  The lower court denied the motion to vacate, but it was not clear if the inherent authority ground for vacatur was addressed.  The Sixth District reversed and remanded, requiring the lower court to address whether the inherent authority to vacate under CCP § 283 was a proper basis to do so.  It was concerned that a client’s lack of informed consent on a settlement was a significant concern, even when 998 offers are involved.  (Cf. Whittier Union High Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.3d 504, 508 (1977).)