30 Cal. App. 5th 918
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Plaintiff Licudine underwent gallbladder surgery; surgical complication (nicked vein) caused major bleeding, long hospitalization, scarring, and chronic condition.
- Plaintiff filed a three-page malpractice complaint and served Cedars on May 23, 2013; Cedars answered June 6, 2013.
- Plaintiff served a Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer to Cedars on June 11, 2013 for $249,999.99; Cedars objected that the offer was premature and the offer expired July 16, 2013 without acceptance.
- After two trials (first verdict reduced and remanded; retrial), final judgment was $5,594,557 (after statutory cap reduction).
- Plaintiff sought prejudgment interest from the date of the § 998 offer; trial court struck the request holding the § 998 offer was not made in good faith because Cedars lacked sufficient information to evaluate it.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the offer was premature given timing, limited pre-offer information, and plaintiff’s failure to respond to Cedars’ objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the § 998 offer valid/good faith such that prejudgment interest attaches? | Licudine: offer was valid; verdict was more favorable so prejudgment interest applies. | Cedars: offer was premature and invalid because it was served too early and Cedars lacked sufficient information to intelligently evaluate it. | Held: Offer was not made in good faith; trial court did not abuse discretion; prejudgment interest denied. |
| Did Cedars have sufficient information to evaluate liability and damages at time of offer? | Licudine: medical chart, some discovery, and peer review gave Cedars adequate information. | Cedars: complaint was skeletal, minimal discovery, and key damages info (pain/suffering, offsets, earning loss) was lacking. | Held: Information was insufficient to evaluate reasonable prospect of acceptance. |
| Did Cedars preserve/notify lack of information (and was plaintiff obliged to respond or extend)? | Licudine: Cedars waived objection by not requesting extension. | Cedars: timely objection to prematurity sufficed to put plaintiff on notice. | Held: Cedars’ written objection was adequate; plaintiff failed to respond or supply more information. |
| Did trial court err by excluding certain materials or shifting burden? | Licudine: court erred in denying supplementation of record (interrogatory answers) and placed burden improperly on plaintiff. | Cedars: supplementation was discretionary; plaintiff’s counsel made tactical choices; burden rules observed. | Held: No error—trial court properly exercised discretion and did not impermissibly shift burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 692 (stating § 998 offers must be made in good faith and have reasonable prospect of acceptance)
- Najera v. Huerta, 191 Cal.App.4th 872 (offeree must have reasonable access to facts to intelligently evaluate a § 998 offer)
- Arno v. Helinet Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 1019 (courts should evaluate totality of circumstances in § 998 good-faith analysis)
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (good-faith requirement for settlement offers and reasonable prospect of acceptance)
- Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111 (both liability and damages information are relevant to evaluating a § 998 offer)