Prior Settlement Agreement Between Parties Did Not Preclude Later Costs Award.
In L.A. County MTA v. Parsons-Dillingham Metro Rail, Case No. B265863 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2018) (unpublished), Parsons was the prevailing party under a false claims count in a qui tam action. Earlier, Parsons and MTA had reached a settlement agreement by which Parsons allowed certain credits to MTA after foregoing certain claims, with the agreement specifying that the compromise terms did not impede any repercussions in further proceedings between the parties. After Parsons won, the trial court awarded it $60,185.07 in routine costs and $249,473.50 in expert witness fees after a CCP § 998 offer was rejected, with the award against MTA.
MTA’s appeal of the costs award did not result in any change of circumstance.
The appellate court determined that the prior settlement agreement “credit” by Parsons did not have to offset against the costs award against MTA, because nothing in the settlement agreement so stated and the “no impact on further proceedings” language demonstrated that this was not the case. (DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal.4th 1140 (2016) [our Leading Case No. 19]. Although arguing that Parsons’ costs were not apportioned only to the false claims count, Parsons had done so such that the amount of the award was proper.
Comments