California Case Summaries™

Free New Sample Case Summary

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

Are simultaneous alternative CCP 998 offers valid?  

Civil Procedure

Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4456864: In this important new case dealing with CCP 998 offers, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order holding that because defendant had sent one valid CCP 998 offer that plaintiff rejected, and plaintiff failed to get a more favorable result at trial, plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees were limited and defendant was awarded its post-offer costs. The twist in this case was that defendant made two simultaneous 998 offers that it labeled as “alternative offers.” After plaintiff leased a lease a new 2016 Land Rover LR4 from defendant, he experienced numerous defects and nonconformities that defendant was unable to repair. Plaintiff sued defendant in a lemon law case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) and alleged (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) breach of the duty to return the vehicle from service without defects within 30 days. Defendant sent two simultaneous 998 offers. One was a lump sum offer, offering to pay plaintiff $85,000.00 to return the vehicle with free and clear title. There was no dispute that this was a valid CCP 998 offer. The other offer was a category-based offer with a dispute resolution mechanism where defendant agreed to pay undisputed damages and allowed plaintiff to pick a dispute resolution process to resolve disputed damages. For both alternative offers defendant offered to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs in either (1) a flat amount of $7,500 or (2) an amount to be determined by the court. The Court of Appeal concluded that simultaneous offers to the same party are not effective under CCP 998 because such offers do not allow the trial court to determine whether the judgement is more favorable than the offer. The Court of Appeal also concluded that category-based offer was invalid. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that when an offeree makes two simultaneous offers, one of which is invalid and the other valid, this does not make the independently valid offer ineffective. The trial court properly evaluated the valid 998 offer and concluded that plaintiff was limited to recovering his pre-offer costs and attorney fees and was required to pay defendant’s post-offer costs. (C.A. 2nd, October 10, 2024.)