Lozano v. Aqua 2000 Purified Water Vending Co. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066403 · 2015-11-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. ECU07583
Trial judge: Juan Ulloa
Outcome: reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
Area: civil
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:04Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Lozano's request to enter judgment on an accepted Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer, finding the offer non-compliant, and subsequently dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the offer was enforceable and directing the trial court to enter judgment in Lozano's favor.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to enter judgment on accepted section 998 offer “The trial court refused, concluding the Offer did not comply with the statute.”	de novo	error	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109 — Establishes that the enforceability of a section 998 offer and its application to undisputed facts are questions of law reviewed de novo.
relied: Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721 — Holds that a section 998 offer is not invalid if it does not track the statutory language precisely, provided it clearly intends a final disposition of the litigation.
relied: American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017 — Establishes that a compromise agreement contemplating payment and dismissal is the legal equivalent of a judgment in the plaintiff's favor.
relied: Chinn v. KMR Property Management (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 175 — Ambiguities in a section 998 offer are construed against the offeror.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the de novo standard of review and relies on binding precedent to establish that the offer's failure to explicitly mention 'entry of judgment' is not fatal when the intent for final disposition is clear. It properly resolves the ambiguity against the offeror and mandates enforcement of the statutory offer to serve the purposes of section 998.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The Imperial County Superior Court refused Enrique Lozano's ex parte request to enter judgment on Aqua 2000's accepted Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to pay $6,000 in exchange for dismissal, finding the offer did not comply with the statute, and entered a judgment of dismissal. The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo, held the offer satisfied section 998 despite calling for dismissal rather than entry of judgment, and reversed with directions to enter judgment on the offer's terms, awarding Lozano costs on appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to enter judgment on accepted section 998 offer on the ground the offer did not comply with the statute, resulting in judgment of dismissal “The trial court refused, concluding the Offer did not comply with the statute.”	de novo	error (statutory interpretation)	agree with court Section 998, subdivision (b) requires only a statement of the terms and conditions and a provision for acceptance by signature, both present here; the statute itself directs that upon filing of an accepted offer the clerk or judge 'shall enter judgment accordingly.' Berg v. Darden and American Airlines v. Sheppard Mullin hold that an offer need not track the statutory 'allow judgment to be taken' language so long as it contemplates final disposition, and Chinn supports construing ambiguities against the offeror. The court's reading is consistent with those authorities and with the remedial purpose of section 998, so the trial court's refusal to enter judgment was error.

Authorities

relied: Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109 — Enforceability of a section 998 offer and application of section 998 to undisputed facts are questions of law reviewed de novo.
relied: Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721 — A section 998 offer need not track the statutory language precisely; an offer that makes clear settlement will finally dispose of the litigation is enforceable, and absent other terms it is construed as an offer to allow judgment for the stated sum.
relied: American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017 — A compromise agreement contemplating payment and dismissal is the legal equivalent of a judgment in plaintiff's favor; a section 998 offer calling for dismissal rather than entry of judgment is valid because it contemplates final disposition.
relied: Chinn v. KMR Property Management (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 175 — Ambiguities in a section 998 offer are construed against the offeror.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies the de novo standard, applies the text of section 998, subdivision (b), and relies on Berg, American Airlines, and Chinn, which directly support holding that an accepted offer calling for dismissal in exchange for payment is enforceable by entry of judgment. The only gaps are that the opinion does not describe the trial court's specific reasons for finding noncompliance or explain how the dismissal judgment came to be entered, but those omissions do not undermine the result given that respondent made no appearance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/19/15 Lozano v. Aqua 2000 Purified Water Vending Co. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE LOZANO, D066403

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. ECU 07583)

AQUA 2000 PURIFIED WATER VENDING COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Dennis J. Price for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

Enrique Lozano appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court denied his request to enter judgment on his accepted offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998). He contends the trial court erred in refusing to enter judgment pursuant to section 998 based on its finding that the offer did not comply with the statute. We agree and reverse the judgment of dismissal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Lozano is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Aqua 2000 Purified Water Vending Company, LLC (Aqua) is the owner and operator of a water vending facility in Calexico, California. Lozano attempted to obtain water from Aqua's facility but was unable to do so because the operating controls and mechanisms were too high.

In March 2013, Lozano brought an action against Aqua for negligence and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Disabled Persons Act. In September of that year, Aqua gave Lozano an offer to compromise pursuant to section 998 (the Offer). The Offer provided:

"Pursuant to . . . [section] 998, Defendant Aqua 2000, Purified Water Vending Company, LLC offers to pay in exchange for dismissal of this action, the sum of $6000 in satisfaction of all claims for damages, costs and expenses, attorney's fees and interest in this action. You may indicate below your acceptance of this offer by signing the statement to that effect that is set forth below. This offer shall remain open for thirty days from the date signed below."

Lozano signed and accepted the Offer within three days. As of July 2014, Aqua failed to pay Lozano any amount of money.

Lozano filed the accepted Offer with the court. Lozano requested ex parte that the court enter judgment in his favor in accordance with the Offer. The trial court refused, concluding the Offer did not comply with the statute.

DISCUSSION

Lozano argues the Offer was enforceable and he was entitled to entry of judgment based thereon. We agree.

2 "The issue of whether a section 998 offer is enforceable, and the application of section 998 to an undisputed set of facts, presents questions of law, which we review de novo." (Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109, 130.)

Under section 998, subdivision (b), a party to a civil action "may serve an offer in writing upon any other party to the action to allow judgment to be taken or an award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions stated at that time. The written offer shall include a statement of the offer, containing the terms and conditions of the judgment or award, and a provision that allows the accepting party to indicate acceptance of the offer by signing a statement that the offer is accepted." (§ 998, subd. (b).) "If the offer is accepted, the offer with proof of acceptance shall be filed and the clerk or the judge shall enter judgment accordingly." (§ 998, subd. (b)(1) (italics added).)

"If no other 'terms and conditions' apart from the consideration required to consummate the settlement are specifically set forth, then the offer, by virtue of default to the statutory language, is simply intended as one to 'allow judgment to be taken' in exchange for the specified amount of funds." (Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721, 728 (Berg).) " '[A]s between the parties thereto and for purposes of enforcement of settlement agreements, a compromise agreement contemplating payment by defendant and dismissal of the action by plaintiff is the legal equivalent of a judgment in plaintiff's favor.' " (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1055 (American Airlines).)

Here, the Offer clearly shows that the parties intended that it be governed by section 998. It was entitled "Offer to Compromise Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 3 § 998 to Plaintiff" and referenced the statute in its terms. Additionally, the terms of the Offer and its acceptance revealed that the parties intended to finally dispose of the lawsuit by resolving "all claims for damages, costs and expenses, attorney's fees, and interest in this action" in exchange for $6,000. The Offer complied with section 998 in that it included a statement of the offer containing the terms and conditions of the judgment or award (payment of $6,000 in satisfaction of all claims, damages, costs, expenses, attorney's fees and interest), and a provision allowing the accepting party to accept the offer by signing the acceptance. (§ 998, subd. (b).)

Although the Offer did not specifically reference entry of judgment and instead called for dismissal, we do not find that omission fatal. (American Airlines, Inc., supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1055-1056 [plaintiff's offer to compromise in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit was valid even though it did not provide for entry of judgment because the compromise offer contemplated some final disposition of the case].) Aqua expressly made its offer pursuant to section 998, which provides that "[i]f the offer is accepted, the offer with proof of acceptance shall be filed and the clerk or the judge shall enter judgment accordingly." (§ 998, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) "An otherwise clear section 998 offer is not rendered invalid simply because it does not track precisely the language of the statute." (Berg, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 728.) Moreover, to the extent that there is an ambiguity in the way in which the lawsuit would be terminated, we construe those ambiguities against the offeror. (Chinn v. KMR Property Management (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 175, 184.)

4 Lozano presumably did not dismiss the action because Aqua never paid him.

Accordingly, his only option to obtain a final disposition of the case was entry of judgment on the terms of the Offer. "[T]he purposes of section 998 [are] best served by enforcement of statutory offers which, despite the absence of the statutory language proposing to 'allow judgment to be taken,' make it clear that settlement will result in a final disposition of the litigation." (Berg, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 729.)

As a matter of law, we find that the Offer satisfied the requirements of section 998. Thus, the trial court erred by failing to enter judgment in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Offer.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of dismissal entered on October 27, 2014, is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the parties' Offer.

Lozano is entitled to costs on appeal.

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Chinn v. KMR Property Management B196321 · 2008-08-22
Westamerica Bank v. Mbg Industries, Inc. F051226 · 2007-12-19
Berg v. Darden B171741 · 2004-07-16
American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton B123313 · 2002-03-08