Legal Opinion
Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided January 3, 2019No. B286350PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHoffstadt, J.
*920A plaintiff who sues and prevails at trial is statutorily entitled to prejudgment interest starting from the date she makes a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (a so-called "998 offer")1 as *921long as that offer is "valid," and the subsequent verdict is "more favorable" than the rejected 998 offer. ( Civ. Code, § 3291 ; Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 692, 698, 241 Cal.Rptr. 108 ( Elrod ).) A 998 offer is valid only if, among other things, the offeror knew that the offeree had reasonable access to the facts necessary to "intelligently evaluate…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Garcia v. HejmadiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Barella v. Exchange BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lewis v. Ukran, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Ayers v. FCA US, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Chen v. BMW of North AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Covert v. FCA USACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2026
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.