Moore v. Rosantsson
Filed 4/10/06 Moore v. Rosantsson CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| G.A. SKIP MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THEODORE ROSANTSSON et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A111218 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV 225831) |
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff G.A. Skip Moore (appellant) brought a personal injury suit against defendants Theodore Rosantsson and Jayne Rosantsson (collectively, respondents) for injuries arising out of an automobile-motorcycle accident. Prior to trial, respondents made a joint offer to appellant in the amount of $12,750, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998), which appellant refused. A jury subsequently awarded appellant $12,546.96 and judgment was entered in this amount. After trial, respondents were awarded their costs under section 998. Appellant argues that the offer was invalid, and if not, that the trial court erred in its determination that the judgment was more favorable than respondents' section 998 settlement offer. We affirm.
II.
Procedural and Factual Background
On December 29, 1999, appellant's vehicle was rear-ended by Theodore Rosantsson, who was driving a car owned by Jayne Rosantsson. Appellant later sued respondents, seeking personal injury and property damages. In his complaint, appellant included causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) estoppel; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) defamation; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On March 18, 2002, respondents made a settlement offer to appellant under section 998, offering $12,750 ($15,000 less court-ordered sanctions in the sum of $2,250 previously imposed on appellant and which was to be paid to respondents) in exchange for each of the following: â€
