Case: Elmi v. Related Mgmt. Co., L.P. - 4DCA clarifies that CCP § 998 does not prevent plaintiff who resolved case for less than defendant’s offer from seeking postjudgment enforcement costs and fees

Certified for Publication: 2/6/2025

Docket

Case Overview:

Procedural posture: Appeal from the Orange County Superior Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for postjudgment fees and costs

Plaintiff-appellant: Caesar Elmi

Defendant-respondent: Related Management Company, L.P.

Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three case no.: G062788

Appeal from: Orange County Superior Court (Marks, J.)

Advocates: Glenn Murphy and Brendan Maloney for Elmi; Daniel Goodkin and Michael Shakouri for Related

Question:

(1) A plaintiff rejects a defendant’s settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure § 998. The case is subsequently resolved for less than the amount the defendant offered. Can the plaintiff later seek postjudgment fees and costs incurred in enforcing the judgment?

Answer:

(1) Yes, the plaintiff can still seek postjudgment enforcement fees and costs. Section 998 governs “costs allowed under Section 1031 and 1032,” which “shall be withheld or augmented as provided in this section.” Postjudgment costs and fees are not recovered under §§ 1031 and 1032, so they are unaffected by § 998(c)(1)’s provision that if “an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.”

Facts:

Plaintiff Elmi rejected a § 998 settlement offer from defendant Related. Elmi later settled for less than the amount Related offered. Following the entry of judgment, Elmi filed a motion for postjudgment enforcement fees and costs. The superior court denied the motion, reasoning that Elmi was not entitled to any postoffer fees or costs under § 998. Elmi appealed.

Outcome:

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three reversed the superior court’s order denying Elmi’s motion for postjudgment fees and costs. The Fourth District Court of Appeal remanded the case to the superior court with instructions to decide whether and to what extent Elmi was entitled to recover the fees and costs that Elmi requested in his motion.

Justice Goethals authored the opinion, joined by Justices Moore and Sanchez.

Links:

Westlaw: 2025 WL 435646

Earlier decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal: Elmi v. Related Mgmt. Co., L.P., No. G061379, 2023 WL 6210756 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2023)