Source: https://www.calattorneysfees.com/2020/01/sanctions-section-998-15-dca-reversed-and-remanded-ccp-998-award-in-favor-of-defendants-although-rev.html
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 09:50:43
Document Index: 610227178

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 998', '§ 128', '§ 998', '§ 128', '§ 998', '§ 128', '§ 998', '§ 128']

Sanctions, Section 998: 1/5 DCA Reversed And Remanded CCP § 998 Award In Favor Of Defendants, Although Reversing As A Matter Of Law CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Against Plaintiff - CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES
« Section 1717: Client’s Suit Against Disbarred Attorney’s Law Partner Was On The Contract Under Civil Code Section 1717 | Main | Probate: Case Goes To The 4/3 DCA A Second Time For Trustee’s Attorney Fees With 4/3 DCA Overturning Lower Court’s Ruling To Reduce »
Sanctions, Section 998: 1/5 DCA Reversed And Remanded CCP § 998 Award In Favor Of Defendants, Although Reversing As A Matter Of Law CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Against Plaintiff
Lower Court’s 998 Award Needed Recalculation; 2017 Amendments To Section 128.5 Rendered That Award Against Plaintiff Invalid As A Matter Of Law.
In Lee v. Harjono, Case No. A151656 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 23, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff (a lawyer) sued defendant driver and his wife in a car accident case, rejecting some CCP § 998 offers by the defense. The jury found driver to be not negligent, even though defendants had to engage an expert witness as part of their defense. The trial judge awarded defendants $2,100 out of a $14,516 expert witness fee request under section 998. The lower court also imposed $3,070 out of a requested $31,809 in CCP § 128.5 sanctions against plaintiff for his frivolous prosecution of an unfair competition claim against defendants.
Both of those awards were reversed on appeal.
CCP § 998 Award. There were multiple problems with the section 998 award, likely compounded by voluminous filings by both sides. The trial court awarded $1,400 for expert costs incurred before the first 998 offer was made, something which was improper. Then, the lower court only awarded $700 out of the remaining request despite finding that the costs itemizations were reasonable. The appellate jurists scratched their collective heads, sending the matter back for a recalculation because it could not make sense of what was awarded.
CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Award. This one was reversed altogether based on 2017 amendments to section 128.5 requiring safe harbor notice and proof of subjective intent. The appellate panel found that the 2017 amendments clarified existing law, rather than change it, such that it applied to transactions predating its enactment. Because the sanctions award could not be justified under the 2017 amendments, it had to be reversed as a matter of law.
Posted at 08:04 AM in Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998 | Permalink