The defense won but then was disappointed when the trial court denied “costs of proof” sanctions for proving matters that were denied by plaintiff in RFAs. So, defendant took the matter up on appeal, only to be disappointed yet again. In Alamo Group IX, LLC v. Tabaie, Case No. A133376 (1st Dist., […]
The result in Chung v. Bookspan, Case Nos. B236479/B238058 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 17, 2013) (unpublished) is actually a great reinforcement of a needed lesson if you are representing a party claiming costs-of-proof sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, which allows a prevailing party at trial to obtain costs/fees of
Discovery, Mediation, and RFA Sanctions Denied. Hi, folks. Although we are in the Holidays (busy at that), we do like to report on decisions that have issues of recurring interest to California litigators. The next one should be a case that peaks such an interest and provides resonant lessons to us all —
Denial of RFA Costs-of-Proof Sanctions to the Defense Also Sustained. Both sides of the litigation in Terry v. Myers, Case Nos. B216925/B220128 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2012) (unpublished) probably went away very unhappy with the results of the Civil Code section 1717 fee award and the refusal to award costs-of-proof sanctions
Fact That Seizure Theory Never Told Until After Suit Filed Was Not Determinative. In Mulhern v. Dungan, Case No. C066731 (3d Dist. Sept. 17, 2012) (unpublished), defendant denied two requests for admissions acknowledging negligence in a car accident with plaintiff. After this accident, defendant apparently was in another rear ender after which a
No Motion to Compel Needed; No Abuse of Discretion in Ultimate Award. Burow v. JTL Development Corp., Case No. B232529 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 13, 2012) (unpublished) involved the requests for admissions costs-of-proof sanctions statute found at Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. There, in a soil construction defect case, defendants
Appellate Follow-up to Earlier Appeal Surveyed in Our September 2, 2010 Post. In our September 2, 2010 post, we surveyed Simon v. Coleman (Simon I), reversing and remanding for consideration attorney’s fees to be awarded for “costs of proof” sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. Clearly, the defense was going to
Three Grounds for Recovery Did Not Support Request. Property owner in Marchi-Friel v. Rago, Case No. A130125 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 31, 2012) (unpublished) did obtain cancellation of a fraudulent grant deed, with the trial court also cancelling related promissory notes out of an abundance of caution. She then sought recovery of
Defense Waived Sanctions By Not Moving to Compel Further Responses to Incomplete RFA Responses. We have blogged many times before on the “costs of proof” sanctions available to litigants that can show the opponent made them expend unnecessary fees and costs in proving facts at trial that were denied in earlier requests for
Appellate Court Remands Cause to Lower Court For Purposes of Satisfying This Standard. Gaskin v. Wegman, Case No. B234124 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 9, 2012) (unpublished) provides a valuable lesson to all litigators and litigants seeking cost-of-proof “sanctions” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. (For a short recap, this is
