Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Settlement

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Under CCP 664.6, the court may, if the section's conditions are met, enter judgment enforcing the parties' settlement.  However, that judgment must state all terms of the settlement agreement that have not yet been fully performed.  The judgment can do nothing else.  If the settlement reserves jurisdiction in the court to enforce the settlement, the court may, after entering judgment… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in denying a prevailing plaintiff attorney fees since the defendant’s initial settlement offer (which the plaintiff rejected) did not comply with section 998. Read More

Putative class representatives were not entitled to intervene in a parallel class action to object to settlement as they could preserve their rights by opting out or by objecting to the settlement and moving to vacate judgment approving the settlement. Read More

The extra costs allowed when a 998 offer is rejected may not be collected by a defendant in an action under California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act unless the defendant shows that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Read More

Unless a personal injury plaintiff’s (future) heirs join in the settlement agreement individually, they are not bound by it or by its releases, so money paid to the plaintiff to settle future wrongful death suits is worth only as much as the hold harmless agreement by the now-deceased plaintiff is; moreover, non-settling defendants cannot take advantage of any setoff as… Read More

For purposes of comparison with the amount of the judgment, pre-offer fees and costs are added to the amount of a rejected 998 settlement offer that is silent as to fees and costs since upon acceptance the offeree would have been entitled to an award of pre-offer fees and costs in addition to the amount of the settlement. Read More

For purposes of comparison with the amount of the judgment, pre-offer fees and costs are added to the amount of a rejected 998 settlement offer that is silent as to fees and costs since upon acceptance the offeree would have been entitled to an award of pre-offer fees and costs in addition to the amount of the settlement. Read More

A cautionary tale for all those who draft and review settlement agreements: plaintiff’s attorney who breached confidentiality clause in settlement agreement could not be liable for breach of contract, since he signed off on the agreement only by indicating his “approval as to form and content” and therefore could not be considered a signatory or party to the contract. Read More

A settlement agreement between the parties to this case was unenforceable because it imposed a substantial restriction on Golden's practice of his profession as a doctor by trying to prevent him from working with any hospital with which CEPMG had a contract, which amounted to 30% of the market. Read More

A settlement agreement and judgment dismissing a prior class action wage & hour suit bars plaintiff's follow-on complaint for nonpayment of reporting time pay during the period covered by the prior litigation, since the agreement’s release was broad enough to cover this component of wages even though it didn’t actually come up in the previous suit. Read More

Judgment in earlier wage & hour class action that employees filed against their staffing company employer barred later suit on the same claims by same employees against the firm where they worked since that firm was the staffing company’s agent with respect to payroll matters. Read More

Under the “pragmatic approach” to determine who is the prevailing party for purposes of statutory attorney fee awards, the question is whether by filing suit, the plaintiff achieved a better result than the defendant's last pre-suit offer of settlement. Read More

Defendant’s 998 offer was not rendered ambiguous by its attempt to “exclude reasonable costs and attorney fees if any”; so when plaintiff refused the offer and then recovered less than the offer at trial, the trial court could award cost and fee sanctions. Read More

1 2 3 4