New Civil Procedure Case re CCP 998 Offers
New CA Civil Procedure Case re CCP 998 Offers
Are simultaneous alternative 998 offers valid?
Last month, the California Court of Appeal addressed this issue. Below is my one-paragraph summary of this new decision:
Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4456864: In this important new case dealing with CCP 998 offers, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order holding that because defendant had sent one valid CCP 998 offer that plaintiff rejected, and plaintiff failed to get a more favorable result at trial, plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees were limited and defendant was awarded its post-offer costs. The twist in this case was that defendant made two simultaneous 998 offers that it labeled as “alternative offers.” After plaintiff leased a lease a new 2016 Land Rover LR4 from defendant, he experienced numerous defects and nonconformities that defendant was unable to repair. Plaintiff sued defendant in a lemon law case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) and alleged (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) breach of the duty to return the vehicle from service without defects within 30 days. Defendant sent two simultaneous 998 offers. One was a lump sum offer, offering to pay plaintiff $85,000.00 to return the vehicle with free and clear title. There was no dispute that this was a valid CCP 998 offer. The other offer was a category-based offer with a dispute resolution mechanism where defendant agreed to pay undisputed damages and allowed plaintiff to pick a dispute resolution process to resolve disputed damages. For both alternative offers defendant offered to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs in either (1) a flat amount of $7,500 or (2) an amount to be determined by the court. The Court of Appeal concluded that simultaneous offers to the same party are not effective under CCP 998 because such offers do not allow the trial court to determine whether the judgement is more favorable than the offer. The Court of Appeal also concluded that category-based offer was invalid. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that when an offeree makes two simultaneous offers, one of which is invalid and the other valid, this does not make the independently valid offer ineffective. The trial court properly evaluated the valid 998 offer and concluded that plaintiff was limited to recovering his pre-offer costs and attorney fees and was required to pay defendant’s post-offer costs. (C.A. 2nd, October 10, 2024.)
I handle a few select civil cases where I represent plaintiffs or defendants in business, insurance bad faith, personal injury, real property and wrongful death actions. Using my experience as a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, and a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates since 1995, my goal is to get each client the best possible result. My clients get the benefit of big firm experience with small firm attention and reasonable rates. To discuss a potential case, email me at [email protected], or call me at (619) 990-4312.
Until my next blog post, do well and be well.
Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Civil Trial Attorney
Podcaster: Trial Alchemy™
Publisher: California Case Summaries™
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]
