Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that a single section 998 offer of compromise presenting two independent, mutually exclusive sets of settlement terms, between which the offeree must choose in order to accept, is not categorically invalid for cost-shifting purposes. Such an alternative-choice offer is valid if it clearly presents the alternatives and at least one set of terms is sufficiently certain to permit accurate valuation when made; cost shifting is then triggered only if the rejecting party fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than the highest-valued valid alternative. Because the plaintiff's $76,155.27 judgment did not exceed the defendant's $85,000 lump-sum alternative, the court affirmed the cost-shifting penalty while rejecting the Court of Appeal's contrary holding that such offers are categorically prohibited, and it assumed without deciding that the offer's second, dispute-resolution alternative was independently invalid.