This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America

Ruling by

Peter A. Krause

Lower Court

Placer County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Michael W. Jones

Section 998 Offer to Compromise's mandatory cost-shifting provision applies when the parties enter into a settlement agreement because a less favorable "judgment" includes a dismissal with prejudice.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 3DCA

Cite as

2023 DJDAR 4081

Published

May 10, 2023

Filing Date

May 9, 2023

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Reversed

Case Fully Briefed

May 13, 2022

Oral Argument

Feb. 24, 2023


OSCAR J. MADRIGAL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. C090463

(Super. Ct. No. S-CV-0038395)

California Court of Appeal

Third Appellate District

Filed May 9, 2023

 

 

ORDER MODIFYING MAJORITY OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

[CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

 

THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 11, 2023, be modified as follows:

1. In the first full sentence in the third line on page 22 of the majority opinion that begins "Indeed, Hyundai explains," delete the word "explains" and insert the word "argues" in its place.

 

2. Delete the last paragraph starting on page 22 of the majority opinion that begins "Plaintiffs rejected reasonable offers," and insert the following paragraph in its place:

Plaintiffs rejected reasonable offers to compromise early in the case, creating a known risk that they might have to forfeit costs and attorney fees from the date of the operative section 998 offer if they failed to obtain a more favorable judgment later. When they ultimately agreed on the brink of trial to accept a monetary settlement in a principal amount that was less than Hyundai's second section 998 offer, and further agreed to dismiss their complaint with prejudice, they arguably "fail[ed] to obtain a more favorable judgment" within the meaning of section 998, subdivision (c). The trial court should therefore have applied that statute when assessing the costs and attorney fees recoverable by the parties. On remand, the trial court may consider the parties' arguments regarding the validity of the offer, whether the offer was more favorable than the judgment obtained by plaintiff, and any other arguments that may flow from the application of section 998. Our opinion does not foreclose the parties from advancing any such contentions below.

 

3. On page 27 of the majority opinion, delete the paragraph under the heading "DISPOSITION" and insert the following paragraph in its place:

The order is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of costs and attorney fees recoverable, consistent with this opinion. Hyundai shall recover its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (5).)

 

This modification changes the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

 

 

BY THE COURT:

 

DUARTE , J.

KRAUSE , J.

 

For the reasons stated in my dissent, I continue to disagree with the disposition as modified and would grant the petition for rehearing.

 

ROBIE , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

#281000

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424