BUT, as per basic contract principles, MAY be revoked at offer”, … “998 any time prior to acceptance (T.M. becomes a Cobb Co. v. Sup. Ct.) upon acceptance stipulated judgment Rejection of offer”… “998 Rejection must be express AND unequivocal (i.e. letter reject…”) “I stating that is (as per and demeaning” Guzman v. Visalia “insulting does NOT suffice Community Bank) Oral rejection MAY suffice… BUT, issues re: proof (unless on record/in court)… OR, simply let offer expire NO obligation to respond/reject … basic contract principles, counteroffer IS rejection… BUT, making does NOT reject opponent’s (CCP NOT offer” offer” § 998 “998 “998 always governed by basic contract principles) Token offer”… “998 In verdict for D… AND, b/c D made P Jones v. Dumrichob, offer”, “998 on the hook for $15K in costs… BUT, D’s was ONLY to excuse/waive costs (technically offer” … “998 offering $0) nonetheless, a real (NOT token) offer” “998 must be reasonable/in good faith, considering likelihood offer” “998 of success at trial… AND, b/c D up winning, for NO $$ was NOT offer” … “998 unreasonable if fearful of being deemed unreasonable, could send letter explaining offer” “998 Summary Judgment Pieces to in CA… motion for summary judgment Points and authorities all legal reasons Evidence i.e. affidavits, declarations 2-column chart (fact on left, Separate statement of undisputed facts proof/where located within evidence on right) would include Opposition to motion for summary judgment also a 2-column chart, w/ fact on opposition to separate statement left, whether disputed/undisputed on right… AND, if disputed, then proof/where located within evidence … CA law (CRC largely conforms w/ federal law… summary judgment 3.1350) Burden on moving party to show nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact (P proving each element D showing that element(s) –OR– can’t be proven)…
… BUT, “998 offer”, as per basic contract principles, MAY be revoked at any time prior to acceptance (T.M. Cobb Co. v. Sup. Ct.) becomes a stipulated judgment upon acceptance Rejection of “998 offer”… Rejection must be express AND unequivocal (i.e. “I reject…”) letter stating that is “insulting and demeaning” (as per Guzman v. Visalia Community Bank) does NOT suffice Oral rejection MAY suffice… BUT, issues re: proof (unless on record/in court)… … OR, simply let offer expire NO obligation to respond/reject basic contract principles, counteroffer IS rejection… BUT, making “998 offer” does NOT reject opponent’s “998 offer” (CCP § 998 NOT always governed by basic contract principles) Token “998 offer”… In Jones v. Dumrichob, verdict for D… AND, b/c D made “998 offer”, P on the hook for $15K in costs… … BUT, D’s “998 offer” was ONLY to excuse/waive costs (technically offering $0) nonetheless, a real “998 offer” (NOT token) “998 offer” must be reasonable/in good faith, considering likelihood of success at trial… … AND, b/c D up winning, “998 offer” for NO $$ was NOT unreasonable if fearful of being deemed unreasonable, could send letter explaining “998 offer” Summary Judgment Pieces to motion for summary judgment in CA… Points and authorities all legal reasons Evidence i.e. affidavits, declarations Separate statement of undisputed facts 2-column chart (fact on left, proof/where located within evidence on right) Opposition to motion for summary judgment would include opposition to separate statement also a 2-column chart, w/ fact on left, whether disputed/undisputed on right… … AND, if disputed, then proof/where located within evidence CA summary judgment law (CRC 3.1350) largely conforms w/ federal law… Burden on moving party to show nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact (P proving each element –OR– D showing that element(s) can’t be proven)…