Cases of Interest Archives - Page 2 of 49 - Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP

24
Apr

Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America 326 Cal.Rptr.3d 309 Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Thu Apr 24th, 2025 by Mathenysears.com / Cases of Interest

A § 998 offer must be sufficiently certain, specific, or definite in its terms and conditions. An offer is sufficiently certain only if:

Its terms and conditions are sufficiently certain that the offeree—at the time the offer is made—can evaluate the worth of the offer and make a reasoned decision whether to accept that offer and
Its terms and conditions are sufficiently certain that the trial court—at the time the case is resolved—can determine whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer.

Burdens of Proof

The 998 offeror bears the burden of demonstration its offer was sufficiently certain and unconditional with any ambiguities strictly construed against the offeror.

The 998 offeree bears the burden of demonstrating the offer was not made in good faith.

Click here to download brief

8
Apr

Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America Supreme Court of California March 20, 2025, Opinion Filed S280598

Tue Apr 8th, 2025 by Mathenysears.com / Cases of Interest

Cost shifting under section 998 is not limited to cases resolved by trial or arbitration.

Nothing in the statute’s language limits its application to cases that end in trial nor exempts from its application cases that settle.

Click here to download brief

8
Apr

Whether Parties in Federal Court have a Mandatory Duty to Update Discovery Responses.

Tue Apr 8th, 2025 by Mathenysears.com / Cases of Interest

Yes, under FRCP Rule 26(e) Duty to Supplement: Discovery, if a party acquires material additional information or learns that information was materially incorrect after serving discovery responses, the responding party has a duty to supplement or amend their response in a timely manner.

Click here to download brief

8
Apr

Johnson v. Department of Transportation 2025 DJDAR 2274 (Mar. 17, 2025, No. C099319)

Tue Apr 8th, 2025 by Mathenysears.com / Cases of Interest

An employee’s disclosure of an email to the claimant did not waive attorney-client privilege under Evid. Code, §§ 912, subd. (a), 953, because the employee lacked authority to waive it, and the agency did not fail to use reasonable means to preserve confidentiality.

Click here to download brief

13
Feb

Carmichael v. Café Sevilla of Riverside, Inc. (2025) Cal.App.4th Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, California

Thu Feb 13th, 2025 by Mathenysears.com / Cases of Interest

Negligence per se claim failed because violation of a conditional use permit is not a “violation of a statute of ordinance.” Further, a rap concert is not an ultrahazardous activity. Such concerts, even ones with rival gang members performing and antagonizing each other, can be conducted safely with proper planning and security.

Click here to download brief

Cases of Interest