Maynard Matthews et al. v. Patrick Ryan

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the trial court’s use of volunteer prospective jurors for voir dire because he did not timely object. The court also held that plaintiffs’ Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer was not invalid merely because it expressly required the defendant’s insurer to consent, since insurer consent was implicitly necessary to bind the insurer. The judgment and order denying costs of proof were affirmed, the order denying prejudgment interest was reversed, and the matter was remanded for consideration of whether the settlement offer was reasonable and made in good faith.

Holdings

1. Ryan forfeited his challenge because he did not object to the trial court's use of volunteer prospective jurors to fill the jury box, despite having multiple opportunities to do so.
2. The offer was not invalid merely because it expressly stated that Ryan's insurer had to consent to Ryan's acceptance.
3. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the offer was reasonable and made in good faith. It remanded for the trial court to make that determination in the first instance.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for costs of proof.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ryan forfeited his challenge to the trial court's use of volunteers when seating prospective jurors for voir dire.
2. Whether plaintiffs' section 998 settlement offer was invalid because it expressly conditioned settlement on consent by Ryan's insurer.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded