Cases: Requests for Admission

Bankruptcy/Requests For Admission: Auto Accident Defendant/Chapter 7 Debtor Properly Discharged From Liability For Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Based On Post-Petition Conduct Or Post-Discharge Conduct

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Requests for Admission

  Post-Petition Was Passive, Not Active, So Discharge Principles Applied.     In Reese v. Mingramm, Case No. B262021 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 18, 2016) (unpublished), a defendant in a later personal injury action filed a Chapter no-asset bankruptcy but failed to list the personal injury plaintiff as a creditor given that the matter was […]

Section 998/Requests For Admission: 4/3 DCA Affirms Lower Court’s Refusal To Award Prevailing Defendant Expert Witness Fees Or Costs Of Proof Sanctions

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

  Lots Of Monetary Awards Were Requested By The Defense, But Nixed. Above:  East bound Union Pacific railroad freight train waiting in a siding, Alray, Calif. Coming up through Cajon Pass.  March, 1943.  Jack Delano, photographer.  Library of Congress.      Ammari v. Union Pacific Railroad, Case No. G052290 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2016)

Costs/Requests For Admissions: Defendant Prevailing In False Advertising Case Reaps $764,552.73 In Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission

  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

Requests For Admissions: Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial Of Federal “Cost-Of-Proof” Sanctions Because Nonadmitting Party Reasonably Believed It Might Prevail On Antitrust Claims

Cases: Requests for Admission

  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

Probate, Requests For Admissions, Section 998: Lower Court Properly Denied Probate Estate’s Request For Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions And Routine Costs

Cases: Probate, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

  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

Requests For Admission/Section 998: Losing Defendant Actually Won A Net Judgment After Section 998 Fee-Shifting Occurred Based On Successful 998 Offer

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: 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

Request For Admissions: Denial Of Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Reversed Because Defendant Had No Reasonable Basis To Deny These Items: Liability, An Ankle Personal Injury, And Some Medical Treatment For The Ankle Injury

Cases: Requests for Admission

  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

Request For Admissions: $287,040 In Fees And $7,448.05 In Expert Fees/Costs As RFA “Cost-Of-Proof” Sanctions Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Requests for Admission

  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

Scroll to Top