Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Best Practices for Statutory Cost-Shifting Offers in Arbitration

Best Practices for Statutory Cost-Shifting Offers in Arbitration Best Practices for Statutory Cost-Shifting Offers in Arbitration ∗ † P. Randolph Finch, Jr. Jennifer J. Griffin I. Introduction Parties to arbitration have another issue to consider after the California Supreme Court decision in Heimlich v. Shivji, 7 Cal. 5th 350 (2019) (“Heim- lich”). In Heimlich, the would-be prevailing party was actually the loser be- cause of a catch-22 created by the arbitration process. This article discusses the potential pitfall and how to assure the benefits of fee- and cost-shifting statutory settlement offers are preserved by parties to arbitration. Although this article focuses on California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, it is applicable to similar fee- and cost-shifting statutes such as Rule 68 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (“Section 998”), the California offer to compromise statute, a prevailing party in arbitration who obtains a more favorable result than its rejected Section 998 offer (“998 Randy Finch is the managing partner at the San Diego-based law firm Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP. The construction industry has been Randy’s focus for over 20 years and his legal expertise includes dispute resolution from early positioning and negotiation, to medi- ation, arbitration, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Dispute Resolution Journal Kluwer Law International

Best Practices for Statutory Cost-Shifting Offers in Arbitration

Dispute Resolution Journal , Volume 75 (2): 14 – Apr 1, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/best-practices-for-statutory-cost-shifting-offers-in-arbitration-ahOBDijTh1
Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
ISSN
1074-8105
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Best Practices for Statutory Cost-Shifting Offers in Arbitration ∗ † P. Randolph Finch, Jr. Jennifer J. Griffin I. Introduction Parties to arbitration have another issue to consider after the California Supreme Court decision in Heimlich v. Shivji, 7 Cal. 5th 350 (2019) (“Heim- lich”). In Heimlich, the would-be prevailing party was actually the loser be- cause of a catch-22 created by the arbitration process. This article discusses the potential pitfall and how to assure the benefits of fee- and cost-shifting statutory settlement offers are preserved by parties to arbitration. Although this article focuses on California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, it is applicable to similar fee- and cost-shifting statutes such as Rule 68 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (“Section 998”), the California offer to compromise statute, a prevailing party in arbitration who obtains a more favorable result than its rejected Section 998 offer (“998 Randy Finch is the managing partner at the San Diego-based law firm Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP. The construction industry has been Randy’s focus for over 20 years and his legal expertise includes dispute resolution from early positioning and negotiation, to medi- ation, arbitration,

Journal

Dispute Resolution JournalKluwer Law International

Published: Apr 1, 2020

There are no references for this article.