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 Apr. 30, 2021) (unpublished) solely related to a CCP § 998 battle, specifically, whether a section 998 offer precluded entry of judgment based on its terms. The lesson, boiled down, is that the offeror needs to make clear what it wants done as far as resolution of the case in the 998 offer; otherwise, ambiguities may be construed against the offeror, as the drafting party.
This case, ultimately, was decided on the basis of an ambiguous offer from the defense, which only indicated a general release would be executed but with no further resolution issues—such as a dismissal or entry of judgment. After a lot of exchanges and a trial court decision indicating that an entry of judgment was contemplated, the Third District reversed.
The infirmity here was that the 998 offeror needed to precisely indicate the resolution in the 998 offer. Nothing in the offer met this requirement of a dismissal or entry of judgment. Simply agreeing to a general release did not meet these requirements. So, 998 offerors—make the terms of the offer clear as far as final resolution!
BLOG UPDATE: The Third District certified this opinion for publication on May 26, 2021.