Bates v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, Inc.
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 680
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bates, administrator of Rinda Bates, sued Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital and others under the Elder Protection Act for injuries alleged before Rinda's death.
- Rinda was hospitalized in Oct 2006, developed a pressure sore, and died of sepsis in Dec 2006; plaintiffs alleged improper care and selection of providers.
- Respondent served a section 998 offer on Feb 9, 2010 to waive costs and dismiss with prejudice; Bates dismissed with prejudice in Feb 2011 during jury selection.
- Respondent sought $83,713.43 in costs in March 2011, including $64,826.75 for expert fees; Bates challenged elder protection costs and pre-offer expert fees.
- Trial court struck $5,547.45 of improper costs and awarded $78,165.98 in costs; Bates appealed challenging the rulings on costs and 998 offer.
- Issue on appeal: whether a prevailing defendant may recover costs under the Elder Protection Act and related sections, and whether the 998 offer was reasonable/good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a prevailing defendant recover costs under the Elder Protection Act? | Elder Protection Act permits only plaintiff attorney fees; no defendant costs. | Murillo allows costs/expert fees to prevailers where not expressly disallowed by statute. | Yes; costs awarded under 1032 and 998 can go to the prevailing defendant; Elder Protection Act does not expressly disallow. |
| Was the 998 offer by respondent reasonable and in good faith? | Offer aimed to secure settlement and avoid large expert costs; perhaps not genuine. | Offer had substantial value, waived costs, and anticipated no settlement—reasonable and good faith. | No abuse of discretion; the offer was reasonable and made in good faith. |
| Are undesignated expert costs recoverable under 998? | Undesignated experts should not be recoverable if not designated as witnesses. | Section 998 covers costs of experts aiding trial preparation even if not designated as witnesses. | Yes; the costs of Hamel, though not designated, were recoverable. |
| Are preoffer expert fees recoverable under 998? | Only postoffer expert fees are recoverable. | Regency and Murillo support recovery of expert costs regardless of timing relative to the offer. | Yes; expert fees incurred before the offer can be recovered under 998. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (1998) (costs may be recoverable by prevailing defendant where statute does not expressly disallow)
- Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co., 151 Cal.App.4th 1186 (2007) (one-way fee shifting; costs not barred by implication under Elder Protection Act)
- Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 97 Cal.App.4th 132 (2002) (unilateral fee-shifting provision does not preclude recovering costs/fees for overlapping claims)
- Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 25 Cal.App.4th 102 (1994) (section 998 offer considerations and reasonableness; burden on plaintiff to show unreasonableness)
- Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111 (1999) (reasonableness of section 998 offer evaluated by what recipient knows at time of offer)
- Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Cal.App.4th 1475 (2011) (good faith requirement for section 998 offers; opposition standards)
- Jones v. Dumrichob, 63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (1998) (section 998 offers may have value beyond monetary relief, including waiver of costs)
- Culbertson v. R. D. Werner Co., Inc., 190 Cal.App.3d 704 (1987) (limits and scope of 998 cost shifting and expert fees)
- Covenant Mutual Ins. Co. v. Young, 179 Cal.App.3d 318 (1986) (one-way public policy rationale for fee shifting)
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (2006) (costs and expert fees under 998; timing considerations clarified)