Jones v. Dumrichob
63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 151 timesFinding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount
Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.
19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 117 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision
Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.
25 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 108 times 1 Legal AnalysesDeeming waived and declining to consider plaintiff's argument that defendant's section 998 offer was invalid because it purportedly required acceptance by all plaintiffs, where plaintiff argued below only that there was no unity of interest among defendants and the offer was not reasonable
Ignacio v. Caracciolo
2 Cal.App.5th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 34 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Ignacio, the Court of Appeal concluded a statutory offer containing an "incredibly broad" release provision, "encompass[ing] numerous claims the releasers may have against the releasees beyond those at issue in the lawsuit," was not valid under section 998. (Ignacio, at p. 88, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 76.)
Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro
27 Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 66 timesHolding that a § 998 offer requiring plaintiff to enter a voluntary dismissal with prejudice met the statutory requirement that the offer allow judgment to be taken in accordance with the terms of the offer
Sanford v. Rasnick
246 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 30 timesIn Sanford v. Rasnick (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Sanford), the defendants served a section 998 offer on the plaintiff conditioned on "[t]he notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release."
Burch v. Children's Hospital of Orange County Thrift Stores, Inc.
109 Cal.App.4th 537 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 39 timesFinding that because the allegations of the complaint at the time plaintiff's section 998 offer was made did not unequivocally establish the defendants' joint and several liability, plaintiff's unapportioned section 998 offer was invalid, even though defendants later admitted joint and several liability
Valentino v. Elliott Sav-On Gas, Inc.
201 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) Cited 54 timesIn Valentino, the offer required the plaintiff to release various potential unfiled claims the plaintiff might have had at the time the offer was made or in the future against a number of defendants, some of whom had not even been named in the lawsuit.
Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
93 Cal.App.3d 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) Cited 71 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 93 Cal. App. 3d 256 (1979), for example, the California Court of Appeal merely held that a stipulated judgment that was silent on costs could not be read to preclude recovery of costs by statute.
Michelson v. Camp
72 Cal.App.4th 955 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 29 timesApplying the full-credit-bid rule to third parties