Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. The Arnold Eng’g Co., No. D070763 (D4d1 Jan. 10, 2019)
This is a sixty-page opinion entirely devoted to an appeal of an award of $615,000 in costs of proof because the plaintiff—who lost at trial—denied a bunch of requests for admission.
Showing posts with label rfa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rfa. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2019
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
After Eighteen Years, a Whimper
In re Tobacco Cases II, No. D065165 (D4d1 Sept. 28, 2015)
This case about Philip Morris’s allegedly deceptive marketing of Marlboro Light cigarettes has been kicking around the state courts since 1997! After a bench trial, the trial court found that Defendants violated the Unfair Competition Law, but nonetheless awarded no remedy. It determined that restitution was inappropriate and any injunctive relief had been long ago mooted by federal legislation specifically addressing the labeling practices at issue in the case.
Affirming on the merits, the court of appeal also addresses two procedural issues: (1) Was Defendant the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure § 1032, entitling it to recover its costs? And (2) did the trial court properly refuse to award Plaintiffs costs and fees under § 2033.420, as a sanction for Defendants’ unjustified denial of a request for admission.
The first question is an easy one. Section 1032 specifically says that the defendant is the prevailing party when plaintiff takes no relief. That’s the case even if there’s a finding that defendant violated the law but no remedy is afforded.
As to the RFA, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ fee request because they never provided an accounting of the fees attributable to the unjustified denial of the RFA. Indeed, their request seems mostly to have been an afterthought to offset the $700k in costs that the court awarded to Defendant as prevailing party. Not only was the trial court within its discretion in denying the request in the absence of an accounting, but by failing to provide the information to justify an award, Plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the denial.
Affirmed.
This case about Philip Morris’s allegedly deceptive marketing of Marlboro Light cigarettes has been kicking around the state courts since 1997! After a bench trial, the trial court found that Defendants violated the Unfair Competition Law, but nonetheless awarded no remedy. It determined that restitution was inappropriate and any injunctive relief had been long ago mooted by federal legislation specifically addressing the labeling practices at issue in the case.
Affirming on the merits, the court of appeal also addresses two procedural issues: (1) Was Defendant the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure § 1032, entitling it to recover its costs? And (2) did the trial court properly refuse to award Plaintiffs costs and fees under § 2033.420, as a sanction for Defendants’ unjustified denial of a request for admission.
The first question is an easy one. Section 1032 specifically says that the defendant is the prevailing party when plaintiff takes no relief. That’s the case even if there’s a finding that defendant violated the law but no remedy is afforded.
As to the RFA, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ fee request because they never provided an accounting of the fees attributable to the unjustified denial of the RFA. Indeed, their request seems mostly to have been an afterthought to offset the $700k in costs that the court awarded to Defendant as prevailing party. Not only was the trial court within its discretion in denying the request in the absence of an accounting, but by failing to provide the information to justify an award, Plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the denial.
Affirmed.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
You Need More than a Hope to Deny an RFA
Grace v. Mansourian, No. G049590 (D4d3 Sept. 15, 2015)
This is a car accident case where defendant allegedly ran a red light. Plaintiff won a jury verdict. He then sought to recover his fees for his costs of proving liability under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420, because Defendant had unjustifiably denied an request that he admit the light was red. All the other witnesses said it was red. But Defendant (somewhat shakily) persisted that it was yellow at best. The trial court denied fee shifting, finding that the difference in memory was sufficient to provide a reasonable basis to deny the RFA.
The court of appeal, however, holds that Defendant’s belief wasn’t reasonable given all of the other overwhelming evidence that the light was, in fact, red. The point isn’t whether there was substantial evidence sufficient to beat summary judgment or avoid nonsuit. That was there. But avoiding SJ didn’t make it reasonable to deny the RFA. Reasonableness requires “more than a hope or a roll of the dice.” Under the circumstances, Defendant’s shifty recollection didn’t cut it.
Reversed.
This is a car accident case where defendant allegedly ran a red light. Plaintiff won a jury verdict. He then sought to recover his fees for his costs of proving liability under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420, because Defendant had unjustifiably denied an request that he admit the light was red. All the other witnesses said it was red. But Defendant (somewhat shakily) persisted that it was yellow at best. The trial court denied fee shifting, finding that the difference in memory was sufficient to provide a reasonable basis to deny the RFA.
The court of appeal, however, holds that Defendant’s belief wasn’t reasonable given all of the other overwhelming evidence that the light was, in fact, red. The point isn’t whether there was substantial evidence sufficient to beat summary judgment or avoid nonsuit. That was there. But avoiding SJ didn’t make it reasonable to deny the RFA. Reasonableness requires “more than a hope or a roll of the dice.” Under the circumstances, Defendant’s shifty recollection didn’t cut it.
Reversed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)