Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

CCP 998(c)(2)(A) deals with the situation where a defendant's 998 offer to compromise is not accepted by a plaintiff and that plaintiff does not obtain a more favorable award than the defendant's 998 offer to compromise. In this situation CCP 998(c)(2)(A) states, [i]n determining whether the plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment, the court or arbitrator shall exclude the post-offer costs. The court in Bennett v. Brown (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 685 explained the rationale for this rule excluding plaintiff's post offer costs when determining if their award is more favorable than the defendant's 998 offer. To hold otherwise would enable plaintiff to dramatically increase its postoffer cost for the sole purpose of increasing the likelihood that its final judgment would exceed defendant's offer. Bennett v. Brown, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 688.

As previously discussed, this case is distinct from the situation in Bennet. In this case, the plaintiff's 998 offer to compromise was rejected by the defendants. Therefore the Bennet rationale does not apply. Moreover, there is nothing in CCP 998 that excludes postoffer costs in situations where a plaintiff's offer is not accepted by the defendants. CCP 998 provides the following for these situations:

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Car Accident Defendant Fights Litigation Costs After Losing At Trial, Part 7 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

MS. HILL IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER EXPERT WITNESS FEES SINCE MS. HILL'S RECOVERY EXCEEDED HER SECTION 998 DEMAND

On January 6, 2010 Ms. Hill made a section 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $18,000. This offer was rejected by defendants. Section 998, which reflects this state's policy of encouraging settlements (Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 266, 270), creates a financial incentive to encourage the parties to make and accept reasonable settlement offers. (Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721, 726-727.) Marcey v. Romero (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215-1216. It is undeniable that Ms. Hill's 998 offer was reasonable. It was only $1,550 more than the jury verdict. Ms. Hills offer was far more reasonable than defendants's 998 offer of $7,500.

Pursuant to CCP § 998 when determining if the defendants did not obtain a more favorable judgment than Ms. Hill's 998 offer Ms. Hill is entitled to add to her jury verdict both pre and post offer statutorily recoverable costs. Stallman v Bell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 740, 748. The court in Stallman provided the following rationale:

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Must Fight For Costs Despite Favorable Car Accident Verdict, Part 6 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

Depositions Costs

Each party took only one non-expert deposition in accordance with CCP § 94(b). Ms. Hill did not take the deposition of defendants experts and wold have stipulated to defendants taking the depositions of plaintiff's two experts, consistent with CCP § 95(b). Accordingly, the deposition costs would have been the same had the case been brought in limited jurisdiction.

Trial Costs: Jury and Court Reporter

Whether in limited or unlimited jurisdiction the facts of the case would have been the same and therefore the trial would have taken the same amount of time. Defendants have provided no authority that Ms. Hill would have been restricted in the number of witnesses she would have been allowed to call at trial had she brought the case in limited jurisdiction. If the jury trial would have been the same length in limited jurisdiction, then the jury fees, jury food and court reporting fees would have been the same wether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction.

Service of Process Costs

Ms. Hill includes costs for service of process for serving three individuals: Sophia Lee, John Lee, and Sgt John Smith. Once again, all three of these individuals would have been served whether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction. Therefore the costs associated with service of process would have been the same wether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction.

http://www.moseleycollins.com/lawyer-attorney-1245027.html

Continue reading "Car Accident Trial Results In Recovery For Sacramento Woman, Part 5 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Requested Statutory Costs Would Have Been The Same Had The Case Been Brought In Limited Jurisdiction

In addition to the Dorman factors, we urge this court to consider other factors as well, such as the limited costs associated with this litigation. Except for procedures specifically designed to lower litigation costs in limited civil cases, the rules of procedure generally applicable to civil actions also apply to limited civil cases. CCP §90. In other words the majority of the procedures in limited jurisdiction are the same as unlimited jurisdiction.

The general right of the prevailing party to recover their costs is established by CCP §1021, which provides that parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to reimbursement of costs as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure §1032 provides for the award of costs to prevailing parties, which includes the party with a net monetary recovery. Ms. Hill is the prevailing part and the party with a net monetary recovery. Had the case been brought in limited jurisdiction she would have been entitled to all of he costs and her costs would have been virtually the same as the costs in this case. Accordingly, there is no reason for the court to award Ms. Hill anything other than all of her requested, statutory recoverable costs because she failed to recover more than $25,000.

The discretion provided in CCP § 1033 makes sense if the plaintiff incurs excessive costs that she would not have incurred had she been in limited jurisdiction. For example, if Plaintiff had taken 10 depositions at a cost of $5000 there would be reason to restrict the costs since CCP § 94(b) restricts the number of depositions allowed by the parties to only one per side.
In the current case, however, the costs would have been the same whether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction. With the limited exception of the initial case filing fee, each costs requested by plaintiff would have been the same if this case was brought in limited jurisdiction.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Recovers Damages For Car Accident Injuries, Part 4 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

PLAINTIFF IS THE PREVAILING PARTY AND IS ENTITLED TO ALL OF HER STATUTORILY RECOVERABLE COSTS

Plaintiff was Entitled to Bring Her Case In Unlimited Jurisdiction

At the time of filing the subject lawsuit, Ms. Hill had economic loss totaling $27,000. As a result, at the time of filing her lawsuit, the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000. California Code of Civil Procedure § 85(a) defines a limited civil case as one where:

(a) The amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). As used in this section, amount in controversy means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorneys' fees, interest, and costs.

Since Ms. Hill had economic damages which exceeded $25,000, it was proper for her to file her case in unlimited jurisdiction. Filing the case in limited jurisdiction would have required Ms. Hill to concede her reasonable and necessary medical expenses, her lost wages and any non-economic damages.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Verdict In Sacramento Car Accident Case Leads To Fight Over Costs, Part 3 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

During the litigation, defendants made two 998 offer's to compromise. The first for $4500, the second for $7500. Plaintiff made two 998 offers to compromise. The first for $45,000, and the second for $18,000. The second 998 offer was served on the defendants on January 6, 2010.
Prior to making the second 998 on offer to compromise in January of 2010, Plaintiff's incurred the following recoverable costs:

a. Filing fees, $371.90;b. Service fees for John Lee, $60;c. Service fees for Sophia Lee, $83;d. Hill deposition transcript, $507.45;e. Lee deposition transcript, $329;f. Counsel travel to Lee deposition $368.;The total of these costs are $1,719.35

Following the 998 offer to compromise, Ms. Hill incurred the following recoverable costs:

a. Deposition of Dr. White, $308.05
b. Deposition of Dr. Ross, $384.80
c. Service fees for Sgt John Smith, $318.00
d. Witness fees for Linda Lane, $372.20
e. Witness fees for Alberto Miller, $35.00
f. Jury fees, $538.26
g. Court recorder fees, 400.00

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Jury Awards Sacramento Woman Damages In Car Accident Trial, Part 2 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Paula Hill’s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs or, in the Alternative, Motion to Tax Costs

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Paula Hill was victorious in her jury trial against defendants Sophia Lee and John Lee. Ms. Hill was forced into trial by defendants who refused her section 998 offer which was only $1550 more than the jury trial verdict. Now, having lost at trial and facing a judgment which, when combined with Ms. Hill's recoverable costs, exceed Ms. Hill's 998 offer to compromise, defendants ask this court to strike all of Ms. Hill's costs. To do so would be plainly unjust. Ms. Hill is the prevailing party, she had a good faith belief she would recover more than $25,000 at trial when she filed the lawsuit, and she made a reasonable offer to compromise to avoid the unnecessary costs of litigation. This court should not punish Ms. Hill because the defendants incorrectly valued this case.

PERTINENT FACTS

This case arose from a car accident which occurred in Sacramento on March 1, 2008. As a result of the accident Ms. Hill suffered a strain in her neck and back. Ms. Hill treated with various treatment providers including an acupuncturist and two chiropractic offices. After about a year of consistent treatment, Ms. Hill fully recovered from her injuries.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Wins Jury Award In Car Accident Case, Part 1 of 7" »