Judge: Gregory W. Alarcon, Case: 22STCV34492, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34492    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 96

22STCV34492

The plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is denied.

Under CCP § 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 post-offer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover post-offer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.

The Defendant’s §998 offer of $150,000 was made in good faith. The evidence shows that the Plaintiff was well aware of his case’s pitfalls because the second car caused the Plaintiff to hit his head. This indicates that the $150,000 §998 offer was made in good faith because it was reasonable considering the circumstances and what could have been expected in terms of an award.  This 998 offer was made shortly before a previously scheduled trial, long after discovery had been completed, allowing both sides to completely understand the liability issues, the treatment Plaintiff received, past medical expenses incurred, and possible future case. While the Plaintiff’s expert mentioned the lost income damage, this was mostly attributable to the cognitive issues suffered by the Plaintiff because of the collision from Kyland Hall’s car. Further, the Defendant has shown evidence that the Plaintiff has succeeded in his job, which runs counter to what the Plaintiff has stated; there has also been increased income and a promotion for the Plaintiff. 

As to the Plaintiff’s cost scaling argument, this court agrees with the defendant that the parties are Mr. Silver and Mr. Quang and not the insurance company. Thus, the insurance company’s income is irrelevant to scaling down the costs for the plaintiff.  If that argument were accepted, virtually every personal injury case would pit the Plaintiff against the insurance company Defendant chose to employ and is required by law who is not a Defendant, to avoid paying the costs associated with not accepting a good faith 998 offer.

This court finds that the Plaintiff must pay for the expert witness fees based on the Plaintiff’s denial of the Defendant’s good faith §998 offer.