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 B244647/B247931 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2015) (unpublished) is a situation where an inverse condemnation plaintiff suffered a dismissal of its inverse condemnation/nuisance claims as against MTA. MTA then moved for $85,528 in RFA cost-of-proof sanctions for plaintiff’s denial of 14 RFAs and also moved for $13,512.81 in routine costs. The trial court denied both the RFA sanctions and routine costs requests.
The appellate court largely affirmed, finding the merits dismissal and RFA cost-of-proof sanctions denial to have been properly decided. After all, MTA did not pinpoint its expenses so as allocate expenses as required under CCP § 2033.420 and also failed to show why the denials went to issues of substantial importance so as to give rise to expense shifting.
On the routine costs, the appellate court found that the longer 180 day filing period was at issue such that the entire $13,512.81 in costs should have been awarded, with the lower court concluding the request was untimely in nature. So, in the end, a lot of fees and resources were expended, with MTA garnering $13,512.81 in routine costs.