California Supreme Court Watch

#25-1 Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, S287946.  (B327745; 105 Cal.App.5th 913; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 19STCV11540.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Is a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options inherently invalid, presumptively invalid, or invalid or partially or entirely valid depending on a separate and independent evaluation of each option?

Petition for review granted: 1/15/2025

Case fully briefed: 1/09/2026

Cause argued and submitted: 5/20/2026 (GMSR’s Cindy Tobisman appeared for the petitioner)

Opinion filed: 8/06/2026

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review filed by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.

See the Reply in Support of Petition for Review filed by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.

See the Opening Brief on the Merits filed by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.

See the Reply Brief on the Merits filed by Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2026) 20 Cal.5th 501.)

“The specific question in this case is whether a single 998 offer that presents two independent and alternative sets of terms and grants the offeree the right to accept by choosing between them is categorically nonconforming because an offer structured in that way lacks sufficient certainty. We hold that such a 998 offer can be valid so long as (1) the offer is structured so that it clearly presents the alternatives available to the offeree, and (2) at least one of the two independent sets of terms is sufficiently certain to permit an accurate valuation at the time the offer is made. Once validity is established, the court must determine whether section 998 cost shifting has been triggered by asking whether the party who rejected the 998 offer “fail[ed] to obtain a judgment or award more favorable” than the highest value, valid alternative proposed. (Id., subds. (c)(1), (d), (e).)

We reject the Court of Appeal’s analysis and conclusion that alternative-choice offers are inherently uncertain, making them categorically prohibited by section 998. We affirm that portion of the judgment upholding the trial court’s award.”

Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Feuer* concurred.