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 In Decuir v. West Coast Escrow, Case No. B325278 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 5, 2024) (unpublished), defendant won a summary judgment motion, later moving for $36,000 in “costs of proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 for plaintiff’s denial of 2 RFAs—with […]
RFAs Were Not Worded Correctly And Not Of Substantial Importance. If you are going for RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420, you should make sure that the RFAs are properly worded to get at facts which must be proven at trial. They also must be requested at a juncture of the case where
Only A Trial Judge Can Order Discovery Sanctions Under Uninsured Motorist Arbitration. We did know that uninsured motorist arbitrations are a niche area for practitioners in the area. That is confirmed by the result in Ourfali v. 21st Century Ins. Co., Case No. B324150 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 27, 2024) (unpublished). There, in
Failure To Allocate Fatal On The CDAFA Claim, But Lack Of Any Evidence During A Jury Trial Meant Some Costs-of-Proof Sanctions Were in Order on Remand. In Yeng Midas Touch, Inc. v. Phanichkul, Case No. D080981 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff lost various tort and a claim under the Computer
Remands Were In Order Because Costs Of Proof Sanctions Were Not Properly Tethered To The Proof Of The Matters Denied And Defense Section 998 Offer Impact Should Not Have Been Held In Abeyance Pending Appeal Well, now that we are past the Thanksgiving holidays, the defense must be giving thanks for the results in
Playing Cute With Business Records Admissibility Issues Might Lead To RFA Sanctions. In Vargas v. Gallizzi, Case No. B317540 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 13, 2023) (published), personal injury plaintiffs prevailed against defendant but only obtained jury verdicts amounting to $30,000 based on a prior appeal and subsequent jury verdict. But that then led
Performance Components Of 998 Offer Were Too Ambiguous; RFAs Were Either Of No Substantial Importance Or Not Unreasonably Denied. In Jarecki v. Zitter, Case No. D078314 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a drainage dispute developed between property owners and downslope neighbors, resulting in plaintiffs losing a trespass claim but prevailing on
The Need For Precision In Allocating Fee Recovery Under CCP § 2033.420 Is Made Clear Here. In Flores v. Medical Holdings, Inc., Case No. B317695 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 20, 2023) (unpublished), the defense propounded denied RFAs on statute of limitation issues, ultimately prevailing on this issue at trial. Feeling emboldened, the defense
$32,500 In Attorney’s Fees Was The Sanction Award Sustained On Appeal. In Forat v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B313816 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 14, 2023) (unpublished), City asked plaintiff to admit that a taking claim was not ripe, an RFA which was denied and with plaintiff’s position leading to the overruling
Plaintiffs’ Lack Of Success At Trial Does Not Demonstrate That They Acted Unreasonably Or In Bad Faith In Denying Requests For Admissions Propounded By Defendants. In Walter v. Estate Strategies, Case No. B280172 (2d Dist., Div. 6 December 5, 2022) (unpublished), defendants moved for and were awarded $1,000,981.50 in costs of proof sanctions, under
