Sixth District Gives a Primer on RFA Expenses and Routine Costs Awards. Berkman v. City of Morgan Hill, Case No. H032205 (6th Dist. Sept. 28, 2010) (unpublished) is a virtual primer on the standards to be met to recover fees/expenses under the request for admission sanctions statute codified at Code of Civil Procedure section […]
Second District, Division 2 Affirms And Awards $5,000 For a Frivolous Appeal. In our category “Requests for Admissions,” we have discussed numerous cases examining the “costs of proof” sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 for litigants that unreasonably deny RFAs for matters later proven true at trial. (The most potent sanction is
Second District, Division 3 Remands For Costs-of-Proof Award Recalculation. Under our sidebar category “Requests for Admissions,” we have looked at many decisions examining the costs-of-proof statute set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(a), which allows the court to order a party improperly denying a request for admission to reimburse another party
Also, Second District, Division 3 Decides Fee Award Not Tethered to Actual Costs of Proof of Denied Admissions. Here is a “biggie” under our category “Requests for Admissions,” a just published Second District, Division 3 decision—Estate of Manuel, Case Nos. B210701/B215380 (2d Dist., Div. 3) (Aug. 10, 2010) (certified for partial publication)—authored by Acting
Second District, Division 4, Explains You Better Move to Compel if You Want to Preserve the Right to Fees Under CCP 2033.420. The underlying facts of the next case were dramatic. A fight broke out at the Rits Cafe culminating in the shooting death of one person and the wounding of another. Lawsuits followed
Second District, Division 8 So Rules. KL Trading Co. v. Dahan, Case No. B215182 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 14, 2010) (unpublished) is a very pragmatic decision in the RFA fee shifting area. The problem is that plaintiff requested $ 56,956.25 in fees for proving certain RFAs not admitted in responses, despite any specific
Standard of Review Was Determinative in This One. When statutes give trial court discretionary calls on fee requests, appellate courts review such calls under a very deferential standard of review. This deferential standard—abuse of discretion–was determinative in the next case we review. In Ross v. Frank, Case No. B211125 (2d Dist., Div. 1
Second District, Division 7 Reverses $78,043 Costs of Proof Award. In Fiore v. Kahana, Case No. B209133 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 17, 2009) (unpublished), the trial court granted a $78,043 costs of proof sanctions for a party’s denial of requests for admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(b)(3). [See our category
Letter from a Reader Dear Marc and Mike, One of our lawyers recently turned me on to your blog on California attorneys’ fees, and I have found it extremely helpful and informative. This is a fantastic resource. With that in mind, I wanted to let you know about an attorneys’ fee award received in a
Fifth District Reversed, Finding Mandatory Sanction Was In Order. O.K., readers, go to our category “Requests for Admission” for a primer on when fees can be awarded for sanctions when a party fails to admit the truth of RFAs. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2033.420(a)-(b).) Now, we have a reversal of a trial court ruling
