CCP § 998 Does Not Expand Fee Allowance, But Only Expands Group Of Litigants Treated As Prevailing Parties.
Glaser v. Mitchel, Case No. A155815 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 7, 2019) (unpublished) was a neighborhood dispute over sunlight/tree disputes—something we have posted on many times before with respect to various California venues. There was a Berkeley Municipal Code fee-shifting, prevailing party provision covering these types of disputes, although the prevailing party has to incur “reasonable” fees. Believe it or not, the winner recovered $255,782.25 in fees, $31,089.70 in routine costs, and $9,200.54 in CCP § 998 expert witness fees. However, winner cross-appealed, claiming the recovery was not enough.
Get outta here, the appellate panel said, although much more politely. The fee recovery had to be reasonable, with the trial court reducing for some associate where information was wanting and for an unidentified billing professional. There was no abuse of discretion in these reductions. Cross-appellant argued that, somehow, something more was owed under section 998, which was dispatched with this observation: section 998 does not grant greater rights to attorney’s fees than those provided by the underlying statute, although it does expand the group of those who are treated as prevailing party and who may be entitled to fees as prevailing parties under the relevant statute. (Mangano v. Verity, Inc, 167 Cal.App.4th 944, 951 (2008).)