Cases: Requests for Admission

Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee […]

Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Requests for Admission

Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to secure costs-of-proof sanctions for unreasonable denial of RFAs under CCP § 2033.420(a). There, a will contest proponent lost, via a summary judgment and trial, all of his claims, with the

Requests For Admission, Section 998: In Automobile Collision Case, CCP § 998 Offer Was Not Invalid For Requiring Consent By Defense Insurer Carriers, And Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Denied To Plaintiff

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

However, The Reasonableness Of The 998 Offer—Not Ruled On By The Lower Court—Had To Be Revisited On Remand. Matthews v. Ryan, Case Nos. B335736 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2026) (partially published; 998 discussion published, but costs of proof sanctions discussion not published) has two good discussions, one on 998 offers which

Request For Admissions, Section 998: Prevailing Defendants Entitled To $108,000 In Costs-Shifting Under Section 998 And $39,140 For RFA Unreasonable Denials

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Opinion Shows How Substantial Expenses Can Be Shifted.                Doe v. Accor Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Case No. A167247 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2025) (unpublished, posted on July 22, 2025) was where a prevailing defendant group won $108,000 based on a successful CCP § 998 offer and $39,140 (out of a

Requests For Admission: Trial Court Properly Denied Prevailing Plaintiff’s Request For Over $1.312 Million In Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions After Garnering A Merits Judgment Of $14,258.45

Cases: Requests for Admission

Early Nature Of The RFAs, Unreasonableness Of Fee Request, And Failure To Provide Billing Which Correlated Time To RFA Proof Work Doomed Plaintiff’s Request.                Plaintiff in Polaris Blue Holdings, LLC v. Friedman, Case Nos. B316411 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 15, 2025) (unpublished) won a judgment of $14,258.45 against two defendants and

Employment, Requests For Admission: Defendant Employer Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees For Defeating Wage/Hour Claims Because Nothing Showed The Action Was Brought In Bad Faith

Cases: Employment, Cases: Requests for Admission

Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Also Not Available Because That Would Thwart The Pro-Employee Cost-Shifting Statutory Provisions.                In Cruz v. Calop Business Systems, Inc., Case No. B337749 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 26, 2024) (unpublished), employee lost wage/hour and unfair competition claims after not opposing a defense summary judgment motion.  However, no finding was ever made that

Default Judgment, Reasonableness Of Fees, Requests For Admission: Lower Court Properly Rejected Default Judgment Request Of About $308,000 In Fees Where Compensatory Damages Were Around $48,000

Cases: Default Judgments, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission

Fee Award Of $4,498.46 Was Proper, Given Inflated Fee Request; Costs Of Proof Sanctions Of $11,852.50 Out Of A Requested $123,016.40 Was Not Improper.                As only Justice Wiley can do in his individual writing style, he reminds us in LCPFV, LLC v. Somatdary Inc., Case No. B325599 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 13, 2024)

Requests For Admission: Where Proposed Responses Were Provided, Lower Court Abused Its Discretion By Deeming RFAs Admitted Based On Prefatory Waived Objections

Cases: Requests for Admission

Too Draconian Of A Result, So Monetary Sanctions Had To Be Revisited.                In Katayama v. Continental Investment Group, Case No. G063872 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 9, 2024) (published), a lower court admitted certain RFAs because the responding party made objections which had been waived even though that party did provide proposed responses.  Monetary

Requests For Admission: Litigant’s Appeal Fees In Sustaining Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Were Properly Denied

Cases: Requests for Admission

CCP § 2033.420’s Language Does Not Allow For Recovery Because The Appellate Fees Were Not Linked To Obviating The Need For Proof.                In Duncombe v. Barfresh Food Group, Inc., Case No. B334220 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished), a litigant incurred appellate fees of $29,722,77 when defending a costs-of-proof sanctions order under

Requests For Admission: Defendant Summary Judgment Winner Properly Denied “Costs Of Proof” Sanctions For Plaintiff’s Denial Of Two RFAs

Cases: Requests for Admission

Defendant Failed To Prove True The Matters At Issue Under The RFAs.                In Decuir v. West Coast Escrow, Case No. B325278 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 5, 2024) (unpublished), defendant won a summary judgment motion, later moving for $36,000 in “costs of proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 for plaintiff’s denial of 2 RFAs—with

Scroll to Top