Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc.
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Samantha Martinez sued Eatlite One, Inc. for pregnancy/gender-based employment discrimination and related tort claims after being terminated while pregnant.
- Defendant served a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer for $12,001 that was silent as to costs and fees; Martinez did not accept it and the offer expired.
- A jury returned a verdict for Martinez awarding $11,490 in damages; the court entered judgment.
- Posttrial, the trial court awarded Martinez $4,095.07 in costs and $60,000 in attorney fees (including pre-offer and post-offer fees), reasoning it could add pre-offer costs/fees to the verdict when comparing to the 998 offer.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the court erred in how it compared the verdict and the 998 offer and in awarding post-offer costs/fees to Martinez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-offer costs and fees should be added to the verdict but not to a 998 offer that is silent on costs when determining if plaintiff obtained a "more favorable judgment" | Martinez argued her pre-offer costs and fees should be added to the $11,490 verdict to determine whether the judgment exceeded the 998 offer | Eatlite argued the court should compare the 998 offer directly with the jury's award because the offer was silent as to costs and fees (i.e., pre-offer costs/fees should not be added to the verdict for comparison) | Court held the proper comparison effectively reduces to comparing the jury award ($11,490) to the $12,001 offer because pre-offer costs/fees are added to both sides when the offer is silent; Martinez did not obtain a "more favorable judgment," so post-offer costs and fees were improperly awarded to plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bodell Constr. Co. v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 62 Cal.App.4th 1508 (court reviews section 998 issues de novo)
- Heritage Eng’g Constr. Inc. v. City of Industry, 65 Cal.App.4th 1435 (discusses treatment of costs when evaluating section 998 comparisons)
- Stallman v. Bell, 235 Cal.App.3d 740 (costs provision in offer affects offer amount but does not alone determine what costs are added to the judgment for section 998 purposes)
- Engle v. Copenbarger & Copenbarger, LLP, 157 Cal.App.4th 165 (a party accepting a section 998 offer is entitled to costs and fees unless excluded by the offer)
- Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 797 (explains the purpose of section 998 to encourage settlement)
Disposition: Reversed the portions of the postjudgment orders awarding post-offer costs and attorney fees to plaintiff and denying post-offer costs to defendant; on remand the trial court must award only pre-offer costs/fees to plaintiff and post-offer costs to defendant (and may award expert fees to defendant in its discretion).