Arriagarazo v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

7 Citing cases

  1. Yehoshua v. Am. Roofing & Gutters, Inc.

    No. B333020 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2024)

    A section 998 offer "results in a judgment unless otherwise specified in the offer." (Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 747 (Arriagarazo).)

  2. Michaels v. State Pers. Bd.

    76 Cal.App.5th 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The principles of offer and acceptance are well established in American jurisprudence. ( Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 748, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 241 ; Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp . (1977) 20 Cal.3d 90, 99, 141 Cal.Rptr. 157, 569 P.2d 751.) Thus, the Legislature has incorporated the concepts of offer and acceptance in statutory schemes, such as the contractual process governing offers to compromise legal actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. ( Arriagarazo , at pp. 744, 748, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 241.)

  3. Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortg. Co.

    21 F.4th 631 (9th Cir. 2021)   Cited 44 times

    Although the MAA could perhaps have defined "the Company" to include DHIM, broadened the scope of who the "employer" is, or otherwise have been drafted to apply to the parties to this case, this is not how D.R. Horton chose to draft the MAA, and it is not for us to fix any defect on behalf of D.R. Horton, DHIM, or any other entity. Arriagarazo v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , 64 Cal. App. 5th 742, 748, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 241 (2021) ("Courts must refrain from altering or rewriting a contract, and they must not ‘add a term to a contract about which the agreement is silent.’ " (quoting Moss Dev. Co. v. Geary , 41 Cal. App. 3d 1, 9, 115 Cal.Rptr. 736 (1974) )).

  4. Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC

    326 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times
    In Gorobets, the defendant's first alternative offer to settle the plaintiff's Song-Beverly Act lawsuit was to pay restitution pursuant to the applicable statutory provisions (but waiving any mileage offset), along with any incidental and consequential damages.

    in assessing what section 998 permits, courts can look to (1) the statutory text (T.M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 277, 204 Cal.Rptr. 143, 682 P.2d 338 (T.M. Cobb), (2) the public policy underlying section 998 (Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1014, 1021, 1026, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 558, 301 P.3d 1167 (Martinez); Valentino v. Elliott Sav-On Gas, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal. App.3d 692, 694, 247 Cal.Rptr. 483 (Valentino); see generally Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1176, 1184, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 366 P.3d 996 [where text of statute does not speak to questions of interpretation, courts turn to " ‘other aids, such as the statute’s purpose … and public policy’ "]), and (3) analogous doctrines of generally applicable contract law, bearing in mind that those doctrines must yield to the specific policies underlying section 998 (T.M. Cobb, at pp. 279-280, 204 Cal. Rptr. 143, 682 P.2d 338; Martinez, at p. 1020, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 558, 301 P.3d 1167; Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 748, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 241). [4] These are questions of statutory interpretation and questions involving application of the law to undisputed facts; although we ordinarily review a trial court’s costs and fees awards under the Act for an abuse of discretion (Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal. App.5th 493, 507, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 654), we review these subsidiary legal questions de novo (Martinez, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1018, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 558, 301 P.3d 1167; One Star, Inc. v. STAAR Surgical Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1089, 102 Cal. Rptr.3d 195 (One Star)).

  5. Arriagarazo v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

    No. C097296 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2024)

    In a prior appeal, appellants challenged the trial court's order vacating the judgment. This court reversed the order and awarded appellants their costs on appeal. (Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 744 (Arriagarazo).) Remittitur was issued on July 27, 2021.

  6. Gavola v. CSJ Servs.

    No. G062457 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2024)

    However, the section 998 process is contractual, and, therefore, the parties may agree that acceptance of a section 998 offer will result in a dismissal rather than a money judgment. (Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 748.) CSJ's section 998 offer did precisely that: It stated that "in exchange for a dismissal" (italics added) CSJ would pay Plaintiffs $75,000 payable in three installments. We strictly construe the section 998 offer.

  7. Jarecki v. Zitter

    No. D078314 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2023)

    Even if the offer term appeared in the instruction (it does not), it would not mean the Zitters knew what the Jareckis meant by the term. (Staffpro, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 268 ["general contract principles" apply to § 998 offers]; cf. Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 748 ["mutual intention of the parties . . . governs"].)