New CA Code of Civil Procedure Case (998 Offers)

I do three things - all CA civil law related:

• I serve as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. I conduct Zoom and in-person hearings throughout California. 
• I publish California Case Summaries™, preparing one-paragraph summaries of every new case published in California in annual, quarterly and monthly publications. My summaries give subscribers a competitive advantage. They always know the new case law and apply it to their cases to work up their cases better, make better arguments, get bigger settlements and win more trials. 
• Finally, I provide Master Lawyer Mentoring™ services to law firms to train their associates to quickly master essential skills, strategically work up their cases, and obtain excellent results for their clients and the law firm. 

Knowing the new case law makes me an excellent mediator, arbitrator, referee and mentor. In this blog post, I discuss a new civil case that was published last month. 

Will You Beat a 998 Offer if You Later Settle for the Same Amount?

998 offers are often addressed by our California courts. Everyone knows you have to get a better result to get the benefits of a 998 offer. But what happens when a defendant serves a 998 offer, the plaintiff rejects it, and two years later on the day of trial the parties settle the case for the same amount as the 998 offer? Who is entitled to get the benefits of the 998 offer then? Last month, the Sixth District Court of Appeal published a new decision addressing this issue. To find out what they decided, watch the video and read my case summary below.

New CA Code of Civil Procedure Decision  

Chen v. BMW of North America (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 18407504: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s post-verdict order awarding plaintiff $53,509.51 in attorney fees and costs in his action alleging breach of warranty and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790, et seq.) and the Consumers Protection Act Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750, et seq.). During the litigation defendant sent a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer, agreeing to pay plaintiff $160,000 (exclusive of recoverable costs and attorney fees accrued to the date of the offer), and attorney fees and costs as awarded by the trial court. Plaintiff rejected the 998 offer, the litigation continued for two more years, and the parties settled on the day of trial with the settlement terms being essentially identical to the section 998 offer. The trial court properly concluded the 998 offer was valid, plaintiff did not do better than the offer, and properly limited the award of plaintiff’s fees and costs to $53,509.51, the fees and costs plaintiff accrued through July 2017, 45 days after the section 998 offer was made. (C.A. 6th, filed December 29, 2022, published January 23, 2023.)  

Mediation, Arbitration and Referee Services

I help attorneys and their clients throughout California serving as a mediator, arbitrator and referee at ADR Services, Inc., handling business, commercial, employment, insurance bad faith, insurance coverage, landlord-tenant (commercial and residential), legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases. I'm an expert in new California civil case law and using Zoom. I've been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. I've represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of civil cases including the areas listed above. To schedule a new matter, please contact my case manager at ADR services, Ins., Haward Cho, [email protected], (213) 683-1600.  

California Case Summaries™

Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
California Case Summaries™
Master Lawyer Mentoring™
CA Civil Trial Attorney Since 1980
ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President San Diego County Bar Assn., SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312. Email: [email protected]