Section 998: Cross-Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Invalid, So It Did Not Dilute Recovery By Defendant/Cross-Complainant On Other Defense Claims

Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach.

               In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute between a plaintiff subcontractor and a defendant general contractor, with general contractor bringing a cross-complaint which was voluntarily dismissed during the litigation.  Plaintiff sub won a jury verdict, but it was overturned on a JNOV motion based on an unlicensed contractor issue.  Later, prevailing party sub was awarded $24,396.06 in costs and $226,400 in attorney’s fees.  Sub’s appeal was unsuccessful on overturning the costs/fees order.  Sub argued that it made a successful CCP § 998 offer on general contractor’s cross-complaint, which was not accepted.  The problem was that the 998 offer was invalid: it requested not only a dismissal of the cross-complaint but a broader release of all claims, known and unknown.  Because this § 998 offer language was overbroad, there was no basis to upset the costs/fees award.  (Ignacio v. Caracciolo, 2 Cal.App.5^th 81, 86-87 (2016).)