Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?
June 15, 2017 —
Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):
If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer
Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022
December 27, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsGov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws.
California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers
On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests.
Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats
January 04, 2018 —
William Hussey – White and WilliamsMany clients and friends have inquired about accelerating the payment of their 2018 real property taxes as a result of the recent enactment of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Pursuant to that Act, the deduction for state and local income, real property and other taxes will be capped at $10,000 in tax years 2018 through 2025. The Act, moreover, specifically disallows a deduction in 2017 for 2018 state and local income taxes that are prepaid before year-end.
The Act was not clear on whether a prepayment of 2018 real property taxes would be deductible in 2017. For certain taxpayers that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax, a prepayment of those 2018 real property taxes might be of current benefit to them.
Yesterday, the IRS issued an advisory to taxpayers outlining which real property tax prepayments will be deductible in 2017 and which are not. The text of that advisory, together with the illustrative examples, is set out below for your consideration.
IR-2017-210, DEC. 27, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service advised tax professionals and taxpayers today that pre-paying 2018 state and local real property taxes in 2017 may be tax deductible under certain circumstances.
The IRS has received a number of questions from the tax community concerning the deductibility of prepaid real property taxes. In general, whether a taxpayer is allowed a deduction for the prepayment of state or local real property taxes in 2017 depends on whether the taxpayer makes the payment in 2017 and the real property taxes are assessed prior to 2018. A prepayment of anticipated real property taxes that have not been assessed prior to 2018 are not deductible in 2017. State or local law determines whether and when a property tax is assessed, which is generally when the taxpayer becomes liable for the property tax imposed.
The following examples illustrate these points.
Example 1: Assume County A assesses property tax on July 1, 2017 for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. On July 31, 2017, County A sends notices to residents notifying them of the assessment and billing the property tax in two installments with the first installment due Sept. 30, 2017 and the second installment due Jan. 31, 2018. Assuming taxpayer has paid the first installment in 2017, the taxpayer may choose to pay the second installment on Dec. 31, 2017, and may claim a deduction for this prepayment on the taxpayer’s 2017 return.
Example 2: County B also assesses and bills its residents for property taxes on July 1, 2017, for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. County B intends to make the usual assessment in July 2018 for the period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019. However, because county residents wish to prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017, County B has revised its computer systems to accept prepayment of property taxes for the 2018-2019 property tax year. Taxpayers who prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed to deduct the prepayment on their federal tax returns because the county will not assess the property tax for the 2018-2019 tax year until July 1, 2018.
The IRS reminds taxpayers that a number of provisions remain available this week that could affect 2017 tax bills. Time remains to make charitable donations. See IR-17-191 for more information. The deadline to make contributions for individual retirement accounts - which can be used by some taxpayers on 2017 tax returns - is the April 2018 tax deadline.
IRS.gov has more information on these and other provisions to help taxpayers prepare for the upcoming filing season.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Hussey, White and WilliamsMr. Hussey may be contacted at
husseyw@whiteandwilliams.com
Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions
January 13, 2017 —
Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. BlogRecently, the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware imposed $3 million in punitive sanctions in order to redress harms caused by a company’s bad faith deletion of tens of thousands of emails during the course of litigation. The sanctions were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which was amended effective December 1, 2015 to permit sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”).
In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,1 the plaintiff, GN Netcom, brought an antitrust suit alleging that the defendant company, Plantronics, interfered with distributors to stop GN Netcom from marketing its product. Upon receipt of GN Netcom’s demand letter, Plantronics issued a litigation hold and began providing training sessions to its employees to ensure compliance. Upon filing of GN Netcom’s suit, Plantronics issued an updated litigation hold and continued training sessions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at
gvh@sdvlaw.com
OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit
December 13, 2021 —
George Morrison - White and Williams LLPOn November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow.
Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:
- The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
- The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
- The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
George Morrison, White and Williams LLPMr. Morrison may be contacted at
morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com
LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition
June 06, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogApparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?
Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.
If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.
But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case
February 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is seeking to be removed from a construction defect suit filed by Aspen homeowners. APCHA claims that it should not be a party to the suit, since it had nothing to do with the development of the Burlingame Ranch community. Responsibility should instead, according to the agency, rest with the City of Aspen. APCHA’s role was to sell the homes to individuals whom it had verified were eligible to purchase affordable housing. Tom McCabe, the director of APCHA said that “APCHA has no part in the building of housing anymore, and we haven’t for a long time.”
Chris Rhody, who represents the Burlingame homeowners, feels that APCHA should be involved. The homeowners are alleging that construction defects, including cracked exterior siding, are the result of faulty materials and improper installation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Governor Signs COVID-19 Liability Shield
May 17, 2021 —
Andrea de Oña - Lewis BrisboisOn March 29, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Florida Statute 768.38, granting significant protections to business entities, educational institutions, governmental entities, and religious institutions from claims related to COVID-19 if they made a good faith effort to follow guidelines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The law is effective immediately and applies to actions filed after March 29, 2021.
Recognizing the financial impact that the pandemic has had across the State of Florida, the new law aims to dissuade potential claimants from filing meritless claims for personal injuries, wrongful death, or other damages allegedly due to COVID-19 exposure in a few key ways.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrea de Oña, Lewis BrisboisMs. Oña may be contacted at
Andrea.deOna@lewisbrisbois.com
