Lots Of Monetary Awards Were Requested By The Defense, But Nixed.
Above: East bound Union Pacific railroad freight train waiting in a siding, Alray, Calif. Coming up through Cajon Pass. March, 1943. Jack Delano, photographer. Library of Congress.
Ammari v. Union Pacific Railroad, Case No. G052290 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2016) (unpublished), a 3-0 panel decision authored by Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, contains some good reminders that CCP § 998 offers may be in peril if made too early in litigation and that costs-of-proof sanctions for RFA denials must actually deal with matters proven at trial/calibrated to the fees and expenses actually incurred for specific denials (as opposed to requesting an award of all fees and expenses incurred in the defense of a case).
What happened in this matter was that a railroad defendant defensed plaintiffs’ negligence claims in a freight train-SUV collision case. The jury simply answered a special verdict “no” on whether defendant was negligent—a verdict which was upheld on appeal. Later, the lower court refused to award defendant $123,000 in expert witness fees after plaintiffs rejected a $25,000 § 998 offer or to award $333,000 in attorney’s fees/$123,000 in expert witness fees for purported bad faith denials of requests for admissions (pursuant to the CCP § 2033.420’s costs-of-proof sanctions). Railroad’s cross-appeal was unsuccessful in changing these post-trial rulings.
Section 998/Expert Witness Fees Ruling. The appellate court acknowledged that the 998 offer was presumptively reasonable based on the defense jury verdict, shifting the burden to plaintiffs to demonstrate the offer was unreasonable. However, plaintiffs met their burden of proof under the circumstances. Even though there was an early TIR video that possibly showed no liability by defendant, the video was subject to conflicting interpretations such that it did not show plaintiffs knew early on that this was a “no liability” case. Beyond that, the § 998 offer was made too early in the case—two months after defendant answered the complaint, when only one percipient deposition had been taken and when no experts had begun work on the case. All of these factors showed the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the 998 offer unreasonable given the stage of the proceedings when it was transmitted. (Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 692, 699 (1987).)
Costs-of-Proof Sanctions Ruling. This ruling was correct for three reasons: (1) plaintiffs reasonably denied causation RFAs even though unreasonably denying blood alcohol contents RFAs; (2) defendant failed to demonstrate that it proved decedents were at fault during trial given the general “no negligence” conclusion by jurors; and (3) defendants never requested fees and expenses specifically pinpointed to the particular RFA denials, instead asking in overbroad fashion for all defense attorney’s fees and expert witness fees.
Comments