Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

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.

Timed Out LLC v. 13359 Corp.

by Jan T. Chilton |

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

Ponce v. Wells Fargo Bank

by Jan T. Chilton |

Sanctions were improperly awarded under CCP 128.7 since plaintiffs’ suit was not frivolous; they had a nonfrivolous argument that their agreement to settle a prior action did not release the defendants in this follow-on suit. Read More

Gonzalez v. Lew

by Jan T. Chilton |

A joint offer by two plaintiffs was effective to allow enhanced cost recovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 when one plaintiff recovered more than the joint offer, thus establishing with certainty that the recovery was more favorable than the rejected joint offer. Read More

Miller v. City of Portland

Defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment resulted in a binding contract whereby plaintiff was to receive reasonable attorney fees to be awarded by the court; consequently, court could not revisit whether fee award was permitted, only what sum would be reasonable.   Read More

Sviridov v. City of San Diego

If a defendant in a Fair Employment and Housing Act lawsuit makes a section 998 offer that the plaintiff rejects and does not improve upon at trial, the defendant may recover its costs under section 998 notwithstanding the normal rule that a defendant cannot recover costs against the plaintiff in a FEHA action unless the action was objectively without foundation.… Read More

United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.

Defendant could not get a settlement agreement invalidated by claiming plaintiff United States had committed fraud on the court, since the later-discovered information on which defendant relied either didn't show fraud at all or only filled in details of fraud that defendant suspected before it settled.   Read More

Iqbal v. Ziadeh

"Affiliate" means a person in a dependent or subordinate relationship with another, not just anyone with some sort of connection to the other; so a settlement agreement’s release did not extend to the lessor of released defendants and plaintiff’s suit against that entity could proceed.  Read More

Ignacio v. Caracciolo

A 998 offer is invalid and will not shift costs if it requires a release of claims beyond those pertaining to the action in which the 998 offer is made, such as, here, where the 998 offer required plaintiff to release all claims he might have against the defendant, whether or not they were connected with the incident giving rise… Read More

Sanford v. Rasnick

A 998 offer requiring the opposing party to enter into a settlement agreement is not a valid 998 offer; while cases have allowed a 998 offer to demand a release, a settlement agreement is different, more extensive and more subject to disagreement as to form and contents.  Read More

Karpinski v. Smitty's Bar, Inc.

A badly drafted settlement agreement did not condition plaintiff’s right to receive the settlement funds on plaintiff’s prior discharge of medical liens on his claim.  Read More

1 2 3 4