Plaintiff’s Failure To Provide Accounting Precluded Costs Of Proof Sanctions. Marie Jansen smoking and holding umbrella in beach scene. c1893. Library of Congress. In re Tobacco Cases II, Case No. D065165 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2015) (published) is the likely denouement to a false advertising case against a large […]
4/3 Unpublished Decision Certified For Publication. On August 18, 2015, we posted on Grace v. Mansourian, a Fourth District, Division 3 unpublished decision which reversed the wholesale denial of RFA “costs-of-proof” sanctions in a case where certain denials in a personal injury case by the defense were found to be unreasonable on appeal.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2) Analog “Costs of Proof” Sanctions At Issue. Although we have many times posted on California’s “cost-of-proof” sanctions provision under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, the next case involves Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2), which states that “[i]f a party fails to admit what is requested under Rule
Section 998 Inapplicable In Probate Proceeding. In a dispute involving the reformation of the terms of a “tontine” or survivalist partnership agreement, a probate estate was denied “costs-of-proof” attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 and had stricken its memorandum seeking post-remand costs based on Code of Civil Procedure section 998
Although Suffering $8,210 “Net” Adverse Jury Verdict, Section 998 Expert Witness Fees/Other Costs Actually Resulted In Positive Award To Defense. Talk about a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer being a “game changer,” it was that in the next case and with football season looming, should be heeded by all litigators no
Defendant Simply Having Contradictory Version Of Events Does Not Negate Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions. Grace v. Mansourian, Case No. G049590 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 17, 2015) (unpublished) is interesting because our local Santa Ana court, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Thompson, reversed the denial of costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 for
Trial Court Had Jurisdiction To Rule On Matter Post-Trial During Appeal Pendency. Plaintiff/cross-defendant prevailed in a bitterly contested real estate dispute after a jury trial as against defendant/cross-complainant. Then, after defendant/cross-complainant denied five key RFAs requiring plaintiff/cross-defendant to prove otherwise at trial, the lower court awarded prevailing plaintiff/cross-defendant RFA “cost-of-proof” sanctions in the
Also, Failure To Itemize Expenses Incurred For RFA Denials Prevented Imposition Of Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions. The standard of review is critical in appellate matters as well as the development of the record below. Appellant, the successful defendant in a residential unlawful detainer case, found that out in Kennedy v. Morin, Case No. B254871 (2d
Costs Request Was Not Timely Served, Such That $13,512.81 Went To Governmental Entity On Appeal—With Rest Of The Results Sustained. Downey Real Estate Holding, LLC v. L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Case Nos. B244647/B247931 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2015) (unpublished) is a situation where an inverse condemnation plaintiff suffered a dismissal of
RFA “Sanctions” Are Not True Sanctions, But More Akin To Damages Or Attorney’s Fees Precluded By Federal Statute. City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC, Case No. B249094 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 18, 2015) (published) is an interesting case showing how costs-of-proof sanctions relating to California request for admissions are not
