Does Essex have a burden of demonstrating a clear abuse of discretion in making a statutory statutory settlement offer?

Essex failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a clear abuse of discretion in this case. Essex first asserts the section 998 offer was presumptively unreasonable because it was a less than nominal no money offer. The case he cites, Colbaugh v. Hartline (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1527, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 213, does not establish a presumption of unreasonableness where a net monetary sum is not included in a pretrial statutory settlement offer. Instead, a modest settlement offer may be in good faith if it is believed the defendant has a significant likelihood of prevailing at trial.

[112 Cal.Rptr.3d 928]