Cases: Requests for Admission

Requests for Admissions: Lower Court Denial Of “Costs of Proof” Sanctions For RFA Denials Reversed And Affirmed In Various Respects

Cases: Requests for Admission

  Unless Truly Conflicting Proof Presented To Justify Denials, Then Costs Of Proof Sanctions In Play Where Nothing Supporting Certain Blanket Denials.      Usually, the abuse of discretion standard is difficult to surmount. However, where the proof only admits of one reasonable conclusion, don’t be surprised by some reversals depending upon the circumstances, as Crowe […]

Requests For Admissions: Failure To Award “Costs-Of-Proof” Sanctions Was Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Requests for Admission

  Decision Is A Primer To Show Abuse Of Discretion.      Pacific Building Development, Inc. v. Kensington-Fair Oaks Associates Joint Venture, Case No. H038685 (6th Dist. Nov. 20, 2014) (unpublished) is a good primer for any litigator wanting to appeal the denial of “cost-of-proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.240.      Although the reversal of the

Employment/RFAS: Employee Entitled To About $135,500 In Fees/Costs Of Proof Sanctions In Defeating Employer’s Embezzlement/Conversion Claims As Well As $24,637.32 In Other Costs

Cases: Employment, Cases: Requests for Admission

  Requests for Admission Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Included Expert Expenses.      In Amin’s Oil, Inc. v. Indrogit Biswas, Case No. B242081 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff employer sued defendant for embezzlement/conversion, with defendant ex-employee suing for unpaid overtime wages. Employee prevailed, eventually awarded $16,215 in wages and penalties. Then,

Requests For Admission: Lower Court Properly Denied $123,196.58 Costs Of Proof Sanctions For RFA Denial In Common Boundary Survey Dispute

Cases: Requests for Admission

  RFA Denial Was on Legal Accuracy of Survey, And On A Non-Key Issue.      Litigants in Bloxham v. Saldinger, Case No. H038040 (6th Dist. Aug. 1, 2014) (published) were involved in a common boundary line dispute, involving surveys going back as far as 1858, as well as consideration of such arcane doctrines as obliterated

Requests For Admissions/Section 998: $51,269.20 Refusal To Award Plaintiff Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions And Grant of $35,092.50 Costs Award To Defense Based On 998 Offer Rejection—Both Determinations Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

  Lower Court Reasonably Exercised Discretion on Costs-of-Proof Sanctions Request and Correctly Found $100,000 998 Offer Was Reasonable.      In Harman v. Safeway, Inc., Case No. A134891 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $5,060 personal injury jury verdict against Safeway after he was hit by a runaway grocery cart. Before

Requests For Admission: Denial Of Postjudgment Fees Was Error Where Plaintiff Made Stipulation Which Tacitly Demonstrated That RFA Denial Might Have Been Unjustified

Cases: Requests for Admission

  Remand In Order to See If Any Exceptions Applied.      In Mobasser v. Yermian, Case No. B247269 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 22, 2014) (unpublished), defendant appealed a lower court’s refusal to award $22,408 in postjudgment attorney’s fees based on plaintiff’s denial of a request for admission that plaintiff was not an employee. CCP

Private Attorney General/Requests for Admissions: Lower Court Correctly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees And Properly Awarded Petitioner $10,400 In RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions While Properly Denying Defense Costs-Of-Proof Request

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Requests for Admission

  End Result: $10,400 In Sanctions to Petitioner.      In Riverside Sheriffs’ Assn. v. County of Riverside, Case No. E054180 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the lower court earlier had found that Riverside County violated a salary ordinance relating to temporary employee hiring, with the Sheriffs’ Association obtaining a writ which directed

Estoppel/RFAs/Section 1717: Denial Of Fees To Nonsignatory Defendants And $45,000 Against Defendants For “Costs Of Proof” Sanctions Based On Three RFA Denials Upheld

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

  This Case Cuts Across Several Issue Categories. Two painted bronze “golfers” compare notes.  Carol M. Highsmith Collection.  Library of Congress.      Masters v. Burton, Case Nos. B234555/B239447 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 25, 2013) (unpublished) is a case about errant golf balls and litigation claiming concealment of the golf ball “hazard” in connection with

Scroll to Top