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Burow v. JTL Development Corp., Case No. B232529 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 13, 2012) (unpublished) involved the requests for admissions costs-of-proof sanctions statute found at Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.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 got hit with a costs-of-proof sanctions of $235,800, awarded to four plaintiffs in a 25% amount per successful party. (Plaintiffs had requested $582,587.45, but only got a third of the request–a determination much easier to stomach on appeal, we would surmise.)
The RFA costs-of-proof sanctions award was affirmed on appeal.
The defense argument that a motion to compel RFA responses was needed got rejected as a matter of law. (American Federation v. Metropolitan Water District, 126 Cal.App.4th 247, 267 (2005).) Beyond that, the record showed defendants knew about the adverse soil conditions, so the award was no abuse of discretion–all leading to an affirmance.