Wright v. Noack CA3

Filed 9/23/14 Wright v. Noack CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

JIM WRIGHT et al., C073459

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. PC20110523)

v.

MARK NOACK, ENTERPRISE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Jim Wright (Wright) was injured by defendant Mark Noack when Noack’s vehicle ran over his leg. Wright filed a complaint for personal injury, which included a claim by his wife, Karen Wright, for loss of consortium. Following discovery, Noack served a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to settle for $60,001.1 Wright did not accept the offer. Subsequently, a jury awarded Wright $54,805.50. Both parties brought motions to tax costs. The trial court concluded that the award to Wright was less

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise designated.

1

than the amount of the section 998 offer to compromise. The Wrights appeal, arguing the trial court erred in failing to aggregate both Wright’s award and his wife’s award for loss of consortium in determining whether he achieved a more favorable result. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On a December evening in 2009 Wright participated in the “Parade of Lights,” a community Christmas celebration. As Wright stood next to a float, Noack attempted to pass the float and ran over Wright’s left leg, crushing his foot. Wright’s foot required extensive medical care. In September 2011 Wright filed a complaint against Noack alleging personal injury from the accident. The complaint also named Karen Wright as a plaintiff and asserted a cause of action for loss of consortium. Noack filed an answer. Noack served an offer to compromise under section 998 on Wright in August 2012. Noack offered to pay Wright $60,001 in exchange for the entry of a request for dismissal with prejudice of Wright’s cause of action in favor of Noack and the execution of a general release by Wright in favor of Noack. Wright rejected the offer. A jury trial followed. The jury found Wright sustained $23,074 in total past economic loss and $50,000 in general damages. The jury also found Wright was 25 percent at fault for the accident. Accordingly, the verdict was reduced 25 percent to $54,805.50. The jury also awarded Karen Wright $30,000 on her loss of consortium cause of action. Wright was entitled to recover costs incurred prior to the service of the section 998 offer to compromise. These costs totaled $4,747.42, raising his total recovery to $59,552.92. Wright filed a motion to tax Noack’s costs. Wright argued Noack should not be able to recover costs pursuant to section 998 because his wife’s loss of consortium award should be added to his net recovery for the purposes of determining whether he recovered