Requests For Admissions And Routine Costs: Denial Of RFA Expenses And Partial Denial Of Routine Costs Is Affirmed On Appeal

Sixth District Gives a Primer on RFA Expenses and Routine Costs Awards.

     Berkman v. City of Morgan Hill, Case No. H032205 (6^th Dist. Sept. 28, 2010) (unpublished) is a virtual primer on the standards to be met to recover fees/expenses under the request for admission sanctions statute codified at Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 and the routine costs statute under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. Here are the points to take away:

        · Section 2033.420 orders on RFA sanctions can be affirmed based on implied findings, with there being no requirement that findings be expressly stated on the record (containing a spirited debate on the majority and dissenting opinions in Laabs v. City of Victorville, 163 Cal.App.4^th 1242 (2008));

        · A litigant desiring 2033.420 expenses must conquer several exceptions before gaining an expense award, such as whether the denied RFAs were central to the dispute, whether the denying litigant had a reasonable belief that it would prevail in the case, and whether the denying litigant had other good cause for making the denials;

        · A winning cross-defendant’s costs-sharing agreement with other litigants did not necessarily mean that a costs allocation was required with respect to a costs award, even if cross-defendant did not incur the fees based on the sharing agreement (Ceranski v. Muensch, 60 Cal.App.2d 751, 754 (1943); Skistimas v. Old World Owners Assn., 127 Cal.App.4^th 948, 952 (2005); Jones v. Dumrichob, 63 Cal.App.4^th 1258, 1265 (1998)); and

        · A trial court’s allocation of costs is reviewed for an abuse of discretion (Slavin v. Fink, 25 Cal.App.4^th 722, 725 (1994).)

     Below: Hiram Morgan Hill, after whom the City of Morgan Hill is named.

Related Posts