Matthews v. Ryan, 118 Cal.App.5th 155 (filed 1/28/26) — Part 2 In Part 1 (see here), I discussed whether a 998 offer that conditions acceptance on the defendant's insurance carrier consenting is invalid. Spoiler: the Court said no, it's redundant, but not invalid. Now with Part 2 of Matthews v. Ryan: the reasonableness of a 998 offer. Before I get into the case, let’s do a quick review of Part I: Scenario: you serve a 998 at or below what you think the case is worth. Defendan

This recent 2026 case Matthews v. Ryan (cited as 118 Cal.App.5th 155) poses an interesting question about CCP 998 offers and whether an offer that requires a condition to be met is invalid. Let me zoom out first to lay some foundation. Picture this: you serve a 998 on a defendant who is defended by an insurance carrier. You add a condition: "This offer is conditional upon defendant's insurance carrier consenting to defendant's acceptance of this offer." Defendant rejects.

Yesterday I formally announced my firm reopening on my LinkedIn. First, what a wave of positive energy and support from our incredible legal community. I love the support and look forward to continuing to give back to a community that gives so much. This morning I've been sitting with a piece of my post which is part of my tag line “Trained. Organized. Experienced.” Here's part of what I posted yesterday about this: “Organized: I have presented twice recently with Trial Guide