News & Analysis as of

Offer to Compromise

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Court of Appeal Validates 998 Offer Holding That There is No Exception Under Section 998 for Intervening Changes in the Law

On February 27, 2024, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Jacob Ayers v. FCA US, LLC (B315884), in which it reversed the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s cost judgment following the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Statutory Offer To Compromise Void Without Express Acceptance Provision

Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC, et al., 2021 WL 803685 (March 3, 2021); Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division Four, Case No. B302344 (March 3, 2021)... California Code of Civil Procedure...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Carefully Craft Statutory Offers to Compromise or Risk Losing Reward When a Party Fails to Accept the Offer

Generally, a statutory offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that is made to multiple defendants must be expressly apportioned amongst each of the defendants identified in the offer, and cannot be...more

Snell & Wilmer

CCP 998 Does Not Confer an Independent Right to Attorneys’ Fees

Snell & Wilmer on

A so-called “offer to compromise” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ....more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

If a 998 Offer to Compromise is Ambiguous, The Court will Allow any Ambiguity to be Clarified when Considering the Offer’s...

Prince v. Invensure Insurance Brokers (2018) WL 2276603 allows a party to clarify the terms of an ambiguous California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise (998). Such clarification encourages reasonable...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class Dismissed

A Twist on Campbell-Ewald: Seventh Circuit Rejects Effort to Moot Class Action Claims Under F.R.C.P. 67

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s unaccepted offer of complete relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 did not moot a class plaintiff’s...more

Snell & Wilmer

Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

Snell & Wilmer on

In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Statutory Violation Does Not Establish Causation in Wrongful Death Action

In Anthony Toste v. CalPortland Construction, et al. (No. B256946, filed 3/2/16), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the power of the jury to determine causation as an issue of fact in a...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Changes to the California Code of Civil Procedure You Should Know About NOW

The California legislature has recently implemented important changes to the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) that will take effect on January 1, 2016. These changes will affect all aspects of the litigation...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

California Appellate Court Reaffirms Protection Against Stipulated Judgments

In 21st Century Ins. v. Superior Court (No. E062244; filed 9/10/15), a California appeals court confirmed that a defending insurer is not bound by a stipulated judgment entered without its consent, and the fact that the...more

12 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide