News & Analysis as of

Section 998

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

Snell & Wilmer

Section 998’s Cost-Shifting Provisions May Apply When Case Ends in Settlement

Snell & Wilmer on

A divided court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 385, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 9, 2023), review filed (June 20, 2023) recently held that the cost-shifting penalty provisions of California...more

Snell & Wilmer

California Supreme Court Clarifies Possible Lemon Law Damages

Snell & Wilmer on

In Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020) 9 Cal.5th 966, the California Supreme Court expanded the possible damages that are recoverable under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act”) to include registration...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendants in Proposition 65 Coffee Case

After 12 years of litigation, coffee manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are one step closer to closing the door on Proposition 65 warnings on coffee. Coffee generally does not require Proposition 65 warnings—this...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The California Supreme Court (and Court of Appeals) - August 29 - September 2, 2022

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The California Supreme Court issued the following decisions last week: Hoffmann v. Young, et al., Case No. S266003: Under Civil Code section 846, landowners generally owe no duty of care to keep their property safe for...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

Downey Brand LLP

California Plaintiff Who Sues Decedent’s Insurer Can Recover Costs on Top of Policy Limits

Downey Brand LLP on

It’s generally not easy to sue a deceased person’s estate in California. In most cases, claimants must file a creditor’s claim before proceeding with a lawsuit in the Superior Court, which may first require bringing a...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Compensation, Harassment And Discrimination Cases Brought Labor & Employment Law Changes - California’s 2019 Labor & Employment...

State and federal courts handed down labor and employment decisions last year that California employers must be aware of. Read about these decisions that impact everything from equal pay to medical leave, and more....more

Snell & Wilmer

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on 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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Penalties Apply to Insurer that Defends Action in Name of Insured’s Estate Under Probate Code...

In Meleski v. Estate of Hotlen (No. C080023, filed 11/29/18), a California appeals court held that an insurer is subject to the penalties for failure to accept a statutory offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

New California Employment Laws Will Require Significant Changes in 2019

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law several bills that will have significant impact on employers’ workplace obligations. Effective January 1, 2019, the new laws will restrict nondisclosure agreements and...more

Fisher Phillips

California Employers To Face Raft Of New #MeToo Laws

Fisher Phillips on

Wrapping up a whirlwind weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown just signed several pieces of legislation that will create new employer obligations in the areas of sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Specifically,...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

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - September 2017

Jobseeker Website May Be Compelled To Disclose Identity Of Anonymous Posters Who Criticized Employer - ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 13 Cal. App. 5th 603 (2017) - ZL Technologies brought suit, alleging libel per se and...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

Ambiguous Scope of 998 Offer Forfeits Potential Post-Offer Cost Recovery

In Yolanda Ignacio v. Marilynne Caracciolo (No. B266930), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District found that a settlement offer seeking to release a party from claims outside the scope of the litigation at...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

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Prejudgment Interest On Costs Is Improper

In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1423, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court erred when it granted prejudgment interest on costs awarded in a...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

CCP § 998 Fees Rejected As Judgment Was Less Than Offer To Compromise

In Lee v. Silveira, 2015 DJDAR 5287, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District ruled on an interesting tort case involving the interpretation of CCP § 998. In the appeal, a personal injury plaintiff...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise and Howell v. Hamilton Meats Collide

In Lee v. Silveira, et al., 2015 DJDAR 5287, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover fees under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section 998 where...more

24 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