arrow left
arrow right
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

JAMES N. SINUNU, SBN 62802 KELLY L. COWAN, SBN 239635 SINUNU BRUNI LLP ELECTRONICALLY 333 Pine Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104-3311 si F I L E D Telephone: 415.362.9700 County of San Francisco!” Facsimile: 415.362.9707 jsinunu@sinunubruni.com AUG 27 2010 ‘cowan@sinunubruni.com Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clprk B.T. MANCINI CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LAURANCE HAGEN, Case No.: CGC-10-275582 Plaintiff DEFENDANT B.T. MANCINI CO., INC.’S , OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S C.C.P. v. SECTION 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA, ef al., Complaint Filed: June 2, 2010 Trial Date: Not assigned. Defendants. on I COMES NOW Defendant B.T. MANCINI CO., INC. (“B.T. MANCINI”) and hereby objects to Plaintiff LAWRENCE HAGEN, (“hereinafter Plaintiff”)’s Offer to Compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, on grounds that it is premature. At this date, Defendant B.T. MANCINI does not have sufficient facts or information to determine if Plaintiff's offer is reasonable. Section 998 was enacted to encourage the settlement of lawsuits prior to trial and to punish a party that fails to accept a reasonable offer. (See, T.M. Cobb v. Superior Court, (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 273, 280). However, a party is not expected to accept an unreasonable 1 DEFENDANT B.T. MANCINI CO., INC.’S OBJECTION TO C.C.P. SECTION 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISEoffer, or one not made in good faith. (£/red v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 692, 698, 699). The reasonableness of an offer is determined by the information known or the information that reasonably should have been known to the offeree. (/d. at 699). Furthermore, if a party makes a section 998 Offer to Compromise with the knowledge that the offeree lacks information necessary to evaluate the offer, the offer was not made in good faith. (/d. at 700). Accordingly, an offer that is unreasonable and made with a lack of good faith is an invalid Offer to Compromise under section 998. (/d. at 698-699). In this case, insufficient discovery has been completed to enable Defendant B.T. MANCINI to accurately analyze the reasonableness of Plaintiff's Offer to Compromise. No depositions have been taken and Plaintiff has not yet served responses to Set Two Standard Interrogatories. Further, B.T. MANCINI has not received all medical reports, employment records, and/or other discovery responses. Thus, B.T. MANCINI lacks the requisite information to accurately determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff's offer. Since Plaintiff is aware that discovery is not complete in this case, his Offer to Compromise is lacking in good faith. Therefore, his offer fails to effectuate the policy of encouraging settlement of lawsuits prior to trial, and is invalid as a section 998 Offer to Compromise. Based on the above objections, this B.T. MANCINI will request that the Court not impose the augmented costs included within Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Dated: August 27, 2010 SINUNU BRUNI By: (\