California Supreme Court Watch

#23-170 Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, S280598. (C090463; 90 Cal.App.5th 385; Placer County Superior Court; SCV0038395.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Do Code of Civil Procedure section 998’s cost-shifting provisions apply if the parties ultimately negotiate a pre-trial settlement?

Petition for review granted: 8/30/2023

Case fully briefed: 6/28/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 1/07/2025 (GMSR’s Cindy Tobisman argued for the petitioner)

Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full: 3/20/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

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

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

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

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

See the Plaintiffs’ Response to Amicus Briefs filed by Greines, Martin Stein & Richland.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2025) 17 Cal.5th 592.)

“The specific question here is a narrow one. Does a plaintiff who has rejected a 998 offer or allowed it to be deemed withdrawn for want of timely acceptance, but later agrees to settle before trial, necessarily avoid the postoffer cost-shifting effects of section 998? We hold that a plaintiff does not necessarily avoid section 998’s reach in this scenario. Rather, section 998 sets out the default rule, imposing cost shifting whenever its terms are met. However, the parties remain free to agree to their own allocation of costs and fees as part of the settlement agreement….

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.”

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