The company is called IntelliGender, and it manufactures a Prediction Test that indicates the gender of a fetus: green for a boy and orange for a girl. A class action alleged violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws. As it appeared there would be a settlement, notice of the settlement was sent to […]
Trial Court Properly Denied Anti-SLAPP Motion Of Lawyers.
Two lawyers represented a man injured in a vehicular collision in the underlying action. The defendant in that action was in the course and scope of his business and was insured. The plaintiff and defendant in the underlying action agreed to settle their dispute for policy limits of $100,000. The plaintiff in the current action […]
Offer To Compromise: “. . .Pretty Soon, You’re Talking Real Money,” Sen. Everett Dirksen.
In an insurance bad faith case with alleged damages in excess of $500,000, the insurance company made an offer to settle for $30,000 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The offer to compromise was not accepted. Later, judgment was entered in favor of the insurance company, which then submitted its memorandum of costs, […]
Class Action Settlement Reversed.
Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants for advertising a bracelet as a revolutionary bracelet that uses the body’s “biofield” to improve strength and wellness. Alleging the advertising claims were false, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased a bracelet. Defendants agreed to settle the lawsuit, […]
Two Issues: Substantial Factor Analysis In Product Case And Whether There Should Be A Setoff Due To Potential For Future Settlements.
Plaintiffs’ decedent died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. After trial, a jury found defendant was ten percent (10%) responsible for plaintiffs’ damages. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) plaintiffs failed to introduce expert testimony that defendant’s asbestos alone (as opposed to acting in combination with others’ asbestos) constituted a substantial factor in the development of […]
Res Judicata / Claims Preclusion Inapplicable.
In 2005, plaintiff sued defendant in federal court for patent infringement, and the action was settled in 2007. In 2008, plaintiff sued defendant for breach of settlement agreement, once again in federal court. In 2010, plaintiff brought an action against defendant in state court, contending fraudulent transfer of assets in frustration of the settlement agreement. Defendant […]
Bribe Of Public Officials Claimed.
In a matter involving allegations of bribing members of a board of supervisors to obtain their approval of a litigation settlement, the California Supreme Court held: “Whether the offeror is guilty of aiding and abetting the receipt of the bribe depends on whether there is evidence that, in addition to the offer or payment of the […]
Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Acceptance.
Plaintiff did not accept a pretrial settlement offer and did not obtain a more favorable judgment at trial. Defendant insurance company appealed from a postjudgment order denying the Code of Civil Procedure section 998, expert witness fees under it incurred in successfully defendant against plaintiff’s claims. The trial court denied the fees because the offer did not comply […]
Foiled By One Final Judgment Rule.
Plaintiff ophthalmologist, who lost her license to practice medicine, brought an action against another doctor for breach of fiduciary duty, among other causes of action. The defendant doctor cross-complained for defamation. The two had previously undertaken a venture to provide medical services to patients of a health maintenance organization and formed a corporation for that purpose. […]
Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Expert Costs For Defendant After Voluntary Dismissal Prior To Trial.
Plaintiff was injured in a fall in a supermarket. Defendant’s overtures toward settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, as well as defendant’s demand for exchange of expert witnesses were ignored by plaintiff. Defendant moved in limine to preclude the use of experts by plaintiff, and plaintiff dismissed the action prior to a ruling. Defendant […]