Defendant's $200,000 998 offer was clear, not ambiguous, and was enforceable when plaintiff recovered less than $200,000--even though the offer did not refer to the workers’ compensation lien and state whether settlement proceeds could be used to recoup the lien. Absence of a reference to the workers' comp. lien didn't render the offer uncertain or invalid. A party making a… Read More
As in Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815, the plaintiff in a parallel wage and hour case appealed from an order approving a class action and PAGA claim settlement. Contrary Turrietta, but without citing it, this decision holds that even though he opted out of the class, the objector had standing to appeal from the final… Read More
The district court erred in holding that this class settlement was not a coupon settlement within CAFA's meaning (see 28 USC 1712. The settlement gave class members $36 or higher vouchers for defendant's services or products. The relatively low amount of the smallest vouchers and limited (251) number of products or services they could purchase, showed these were coupons even… Read More
The insurer did not breach its policy or the duty of good faith in settling plaintiff's claim which arose from destruction of her house by a wildfire. Under the policy, she was entitled to the least of (a) the policy limit, (b) the cost to rebuild the same house, or (c) the actual cost paid for reconstruction. Here, the insurer… Read More
The release in this class action settlement was too broad. Only claims that were or could have been alleged in the complaint--that arise from the facts the complaint alleges--may be released in a class action settlement. Here, the release went beyond that boundary to any claim that related in any way to any of the facts or theories that the… Read More
A provision in an attorney's contingency fee agreement that purported to allow the attorney to consent on the client's behalf (and over the client's objection) to any settlement offer that the attorney thought was reasonable and in the client's best interest violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and was void. Such a provision creates an immediate, direct conflict of interest… Read More
Class action settlements reached before class certification face a high hurdle to approval. Here, the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement of claims that Tinder violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 52) by charging those over 29 more to use its premium services than younger users. The district court undervalued the worth of the claims… Read More
Hom entered into a lease with tenant. The lease granted extensive rights to lenders to tenant, including performing tenant's obligations and assuming its rights under the lease. Tenant sued Hom who cross-complained against tenant and Petrou, a lender to tenant. As part of his settlement with tenant, Hom dismissed his cross-complaint against Petrou as well. Petrou was awarded attorney fees… Read More
Term of 998 offer requiring plaintiff to indemnify defendant against claims by third parties on the same allegations as the complaint rendered the 998 offer ineffective to shift costs after defendant was dismissed from the action. Though it was understandable that defendant wanted preclude wrongful death claims by heirs of the plaintiff who claimed defendant was liable for his mesothelium… Read More
To settle disputes that arose from Oracle's hiring HP's former CEO, the two signed a settlement agreement containing a "reaffirmation" clause that stating each company’s commitment to their strategic relationship and support of their shared customer base, and that Oracle "“will continue to offer its product suite on HP platforms.” This lengthy opinion holds that the quoted words committed Oracle… Read More
Under the recently revised Rule 23(e)(2) requires a district court to consider, in determining whether to approve a class action settlement, not only the adequacy of the relief in light of the risks of litigation, but also the effectiveness of the proposed means of distributing the settlement and the terms of any proposed award of attorney fees. This decision holds… Read More
BPI was a subcontractor on a public works project. The department found that BPI had not been paying its workers at the prevailing wage rate and issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment for the underpaid wages plus a statutory penalty. BPI claimed the general contractor was at fault for misinforming it about the prevailing wage rate. After BPI filed a… Read More
It is not per se a breach of the insurer's duty of good faith for it to fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits. Accordingly, to support a bad faith judgment against the insurer, the jury must find that the insurer acted unreasonably in rejecting (or failing to accept) even a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits. … Read More
A proper 998 settlement offer must include a provision that allows the opposing party to accept the offer by signing a statement that the offer is accepted. A purported 998 offer lacking that provision cannot be used to shift costs if it is not accepted. (Puerta v. Torres (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1267.) This decision holds that the deficient offer also… Read More
Recognizing split of authority on question of whether a defendant may challenge a good faith settlement determination on appeal from a final judgment or whether the only remedy lies in a writ petition from the good faith finding, and choosing to side with those decisions allowing a challenge on appeal from a final judgment even when the appellant did not… Read More
State Farm's 998 offer was valid and enforceable to shift costs in this case. The signature block contained a space for signature by the attorney for the HOA, which was sufficient to identify the party in the signature line for acceptance. Also, the 998 offer's requirement of signature on a settlement agreement releasing all claims " arising from, relating or… Read More
Defendant LLC was one of several companies run by Garrick. It was a shell without assets or its own employees. Other Garrick companies deposited funds in defendant's accounts when they wanted to pay its creditors including its defense attorneys. This decision holds that the trial court did not err in adding Garrick and his other companies to the stipulated judgment… Read More
This decision holds that Trustees v. Greenough (1882) 105 U.S. 527, and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus (1885) 113 U.S. 116 prohibit routine awards of incentive payments to named plaintiffs from a common fund class recovery. Greenough upheld an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses but rejected as without legal basis an award for the lead plaintiff's… Read More
A 998 offer made jointly to a defendant surgeon and his putative employer was invalid because it required both to agree to the offer. Consent of a single defendant would be insufficient to accept the offer as presented. The case illustrates why 998 offers are invalid when made to multiple defendants requiring all to consent. The putative employer had defenses… Read More
Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer. Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds. The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement. Held: The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene. The motion was… Read More
