CCP § 998 alternative-choice offers — Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
Many employers assume a statutory settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure § 998 has to be a single, clean number to count for cost-shifting purposes. The California Supreme Court just confirmed that assumption is too narrow.
In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, the Court held that a § 998 offer presenting multiple mutually exclusive settlement options in a single offer is not categorically barred under California law.
The Court of Appeal had struck down cost-shifting on the theory that presenting a choice created two simultaneous offers too uncertain to enforce. The Supreme Court disagreed, treating an alternative-choice proposal as a single offer evaluated under ordinary contract principles.
The decision sets a two-part test. The offer must clearly identify the terms attached to each mutually exclusive option, and at least one option must be specific enough for a court to value at the time the offer was made.
If those conditions are met and the case does not resolve better than the strongest valid option, cost-shifting still applies, even if other parts of the offer are more complex.
For employers defending wage-and-hour and other employment claims, this expands what a settlement offer can do: a lump-sum option and a structured alternative can now sit inside the same offer.
An alternative-choice offer only works if it is drafted to meet the Court’s two-part test, and a poorly structured version can undo the cost-shifting benefit entirely. That is exactly what a no-charge initial consultation is for.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed — and how much of a conversation that takes.
Disclaimer: This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.