Bradshaw v. Jasso-Barajas
231 Ariz. 197
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bradshaw sued Jasso-Barajas for negligence after a car accident.
- Jasso-Barajas offered Bradshaw a $9,501 judgment offer including costs; Bradshaw rejected it.
- Arbitration awarded Bradshaw $12,000 plus $374.10 costs; the jury later awarded $8,604 damages plus $946.10 costs.
- The trial court awarded Bradshaw $8,784 in attorneys’ fees under Rule 77(f) after comparing arbitration award to the final judgment.
- The court then awarded Jasso-Barajas $572 in Rule 68(g) sanctions because the final judgment was not more favorable than the offer; Jasso-Barajas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 68(g) sanctions must be deducted before Rule 77(f) analysis | Jasso-Barajas argues deductions must occur first | Bradshaw argues 77(f) analysis occurs first | No error; Rule 77(f) first, then 68(g) sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, LLC, 228 Ariz. 9 (App. 2011) (authority on Rule 77(f) and apples-to-apples comparison)
- Aqua Mgmt., Inc. v. Abdeen, 227 P.3d 498 (Ariz. App. 2010) (plain-language rules and incentives to settle)
- Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc., 923 P.2d 841 (Ariz. App. 1996) (apples-to-apples comparison for sanctions under Rule 68(g))
- Elliott v. Progressive Halcyon Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 828 (Or. App. 2008) (discussion of sanction treatment in judgments versus offers)
- Vega v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 645 (Ariz. App. 2001) (analysis of Rule 77(f) parameters)