California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Fremont General Corp., 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 89 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal. App. 2001):
The People contend this offer was "fatally uncertain," because it failed to allocate the sum offered between restitution and civil penalties, did not designate how any restitution was to be awarded to the alleged "victims," and did not designate the manner in which any civil penalties were to be allocated among the various prosecuting agencies. The People cite no authority for the proposition that a defendant cannot make a valid offer to settle under section 998 unless the sum offered is specifically allocated among the various forms of relief sought by the plaintiff. "To the contrary, case law interpreting the good faith requirement allows for great flexibility in customizing pretrial settlement offers. . . . '[T]he statute does not indicate any intent to limit the terms of the compromise settlement or the type of final disposition.'" (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1264.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.