Reliance On Expert Retained Opinions Can Demonstrate Reasonable Bases For RFA Denials. On December 22, 2018, we posted on Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Co., Case No. D070763 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2018; partially published Jan.10, 2018), which was unpublished at the time. The appellate court reversed a hefty […]
4/1 DCA Decision, Although Unpublished, Suggests That Attorneys And Experts Should Correlate Their Time To Specific RFA Work So It Can Be Properly Allocated. Orange County Water Dist. v. The Arnold Engineering Co., Case No. D070763 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2018) (unpublished) is an RFA costs-of-proof sanctions battle arising out of the
We See A Growing Trend Of Appellate Sanctions In Recent Cases. Appellant in Knudson v. Ryer, Case No. A149532 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished) failed to show why RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 should be reversed based on deficient analysis in the appellate briefing. That led the DCA to
Substantial Costs Awards Are Becoming More Prevalent In Corporate Defendant Type Situations. In several recent posts in the last few months, we have noted a trend for personal injury or consumer plaintiffs to suffer adverse costs awards of a substantial nature. This, of course, counsels that CCP § 998 offers must be carefully assessed
Defense Had Lay And Expert Witnesses, Which If Believed, Supported Its Case, Even Though It Ultimately Lost. Grotenhuis v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, Case No. A151781 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2018) (unpublished) was a case where a trial judge denied a costs-of-proof RFA motion after plaintiff won a contested
Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Sealed The Result. In Ayoub v. Candee, Case No. D073279 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 31, 2018) (unpublished), adjoining rural property owners in Temecula got into an “ado” regarding easements. Eventually, the losing parties/appellants were hit with $59,700 in attorney’s fees for making unjustified requests for admission denials under CCP
Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded Costs To Defense Under CCP § 998 Offer. One of the beauties of posting on unpublished decisions is to see the array of cross-over issues in fees/costs issues at the California state level. Chamblee v. Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc., Case No. D073121 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr.
4/1 DCA Actually Provided A Circumstance-Prone “Rule Of Thumb” To Use. In Markel Ins. Co. v. Controlled Environment HVAC, Inc., Case No. D073125 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 4, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a res ipsa loquitur negligence case, one which was heavily contested on liability, causation, and damages—especially given the defense took the
Losing Side Had Reasonable Cause To Deny RFAs And Lack Of Agreement With Fees Clause Precluded 1717 Recovery. In Preferred Auto Dealers Self Ins. Program, Inc. v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc., Case Nos. A148518 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 2, 2018) (unpublished), PADSIP (a group self-insurer of workers’ compensation claims) lost a breach
CCP § 2033.420(b)(1) Exception Prevented Sanctions Being Assessed. This next decision, Magco Drilling, Inc. v. Natoma Family Housing, L.P., Case No. A151586 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 29, 2018) (unpublished), is a case reining in costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 in a situation where there was a partial denial and the plaintiff tailored
