Defense Waived Sanctions By Not Moving to Compel Further Responses to Incomplete RFA Responses. We have blogged many times before on the “costs of proof” sanctions available to litigants that can show the opponent made them expend unnecessary fees and costs in proving facts at trial that were denied in earlier requests for […]
Appellate Court Remands Cause to Lower Court For Purposes of Satisfying This Standard. Gaskin v. Wegman, Case No. B234124 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 9, 2012) (unpublished) provides a valuable lesson to all litigators and litigants seeking cost-of-proof “sanctions” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. (For a short recap, this is
Lack of Allocation Was Fatal for Brandt and RFA Issues. Insured prevailed in a suit against auto insurer for making repairs rather than declaring the car a total loss. However, insured was denied requested fees of $500,000 ($250,000 plus a 2 multiplier) even though claiming them under one of three theories: (1) California’s
RFA Denials Were Made In Good Faith and Other Denied RFAs Were Not Of Substantial Importance. In our category, “Requests for Admissions,” we have posted on several cases discussing Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, which does allow the trial court to award attorney’s fees and costs to a litigant who proves material
RFAs Were Of Central Importance and Denials Were Not Reasonable in Nature. The Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Bell, Case No. A128685 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 11, 2011) (unpublished) was an appeal of a $4,860.51 costs-of-proof sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.20, which authorizes the lower court to award fees against
RFA Cost-of-Proof Sanctions Cannot Be Assessed Against Litigant’s Attorney. In our August 11, 2010 post, we explored Estate of Manuel, 187 Cal.App.4th 400, 404-405 (2010), where the Second District, Division 3 concluded that RFA cost-of-proof sanctions can only be assessed against a party rather than the party’s attorney. Now, in an unpublished
Specify, Specify … Otherwise, Lose the Fee Award! We do have a category entitled “Requests for Admissions.” Read it. There are lessons to be learned. One of them is to make sure that the RFA denials relate to something tangible–causation, or however else you want to parse it, but make the denials relate to
Reasons: Issue Was Not Of Substantial Importance And Form Interrogatory Responses Effectively Explained Denial. In Wilson v. Lightner, Case No. D055083 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2011) (not for publication), parties in a bitter easement dispute reached a denouement when the trial court awarded successful defendants a postjudgment award of $341,295 as costs
Failure to Admit Four Specific RFAs Propounded By Defense Justified $7,741.48 in Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 2033.420. In our category “Requests for Admissions,” we have explored the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 which, in a nutshell, authorizes imposition of fees and costs for denying a request for admission unless there
Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions. 10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post. Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil
