Decision Is A Primer To Show Abuse Of Discretion.
Pacific Building Development, Inc. v. Kensington-Fair Oaks Associates Joint Venture, Case No. H038685 (6th Dist. Nov. 20, 2014) (unpublished) is a good primer for any litigator wanting to appeal the denial of “cost-of-proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.240.
Although the reversal of the RFA “cost-of-proof” sanctions request was very factually oriented in nature, we can tell you what seemed to resonate with the appellate court. First, the case focused on one crucial RFA regarding whether a settlement resolved the claims against a certain entity—very discreet and narrow in focus. Second, neither side nor even the trial court agreed the RFA was important. Third, there was no real tangible basis for simply denying the RFA with a generic objection not calling for a legal opinion, just a factual “yes” or “no.”