Ruling by
Peter A. KrauseLower Court
Placer County Superior CourtLower Court Judge
Michael W. JonesSection 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 3DCACite as
2023 DJDAR 4081Published
May 10, 2023Filing Date
May 9, 2023Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
ReversedCase Fully Briefed
May 13, 2022Oral Argument
Feb. 24, 2023OSCAR 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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424