Source: https://www.calattorneysfees.com/2015/07/section-998-iris-weinmann-has-instructive-article-on-making-and-responding-to-section-998-offers-in-employment-matters.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:47:21+00:00

Document:
However, Article Actually Explores Nuances Applicable In Non-Employment Matters.
1. The offeror must provide a method for providing written acceptance. If not, it will be held invalid. (Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 (2011).) Ms. Weinmann provides a practice tip—“best practice is to include a signature line for acceptance directly in the offer,” referencing Judicial Council Form CIV-090 (keeping in mind this is for a single plaintiff/single defendant case).
2. No minimum time period after the lawsuit is filed “stays” the giving of a 998 offer. Unlike the “hold” on discovery for a filing party, there is no “hold” on giving a 998 offer early on in a case. (Barba v. Perez, 166 Cal.App.4th 444, 452 (2008).) However, for it to be deemed reasonable and good faith, prudence probably dictates in most cases that the 998 offer is made after all sides have an opportunity to gain information for purposes of intelligently evaluating the case.
5. 998 offeror bears the burden of demonstrating the offer is valid. See Taing v. Johnson Scaffolding Co., 9 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (1992).
8. 998 offer excluding “costs” also includes attorney’s fees within the exclusion. See Martinez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 195 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1041 (2011).
9. Unallocated offer to multiple plaintiffs is generally invalid where all plaintiffs must accept or reject the offer. See Meissner v. Paulson, 212 Cal.App.3d 785, 791 (1989).
10. Best practice is for multiple plaintiffs to allocate offers per plaintiff to multiple defendants. See Hurlbut v. Sonora Community Hospital, 207 Cal.App.3d 388, 410 (1989).
11. Single plaintiff offer to jointly and severally liable defendants does not have to be allocated, likely operating in reverse – jointly and severally liable defendants may jointly submit an offer to a single plaintiff without apportionment. See Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 1000-1001 (1993); Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc., 25 Cal.App.4th 102, 114 (1994).
14. Offeror withdrawing a second 998 offer before acceptance faces risk based on the prior last rejected offer. See One Star, Inc. v. STAAR Surgical Co., 179 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1094-1095 (2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.