HOLDINGS: [1]-In a case in which plaintiff agreed to dismiss two of her seven causes of action with prejudice in exchange for a payment of $23,500 from defendant, the Supreme Court held that a dismissal pursuant to a monetary settlement is not a dismissal in the defendant’s “favor” as that term is used in Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4); [2]-The Supreme Court further held that a plaintiff who enters into a stipulated judgment to be paid money in exchange for a dismissal has obtained a “net monetary recovery” within the meaning of § 1032, subd. (a)(4), whether or not the judgment mentions the settlement; [3]-These holdings establish a default rule that applies only when the parties have not resolved the matter of costs in their settlement agreement or have not stipulated to alternate procedures for awarding costs.
Nakase Law Firm explains wrongful termination law California
Outcome
The judgment of the court of appeal, which held that plaintiff was the prevailing party for purposes of § 1032, subd. (a)(4), was affirmed.