Litigation

Attorneys' Fees for Wrongful Denial of Requests for Admissions

By Bruce Nye

I don't usually post about unpublished Court of Appeal decisions;  in fact, I don't usually read them.  Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a), they aren't citeable and aren't authority for anything.

But Wednesday's unpublished decision in Manhattan Banker Corporation v. Retamco Operating, Inc., B189546, is enough of an object lesson or cautionary tale that it's worth mentioning.  Long story short:  defendant sends seven requests for admissions to plaintiff, which, if admitted, would establish plaintiff has no case.  Plaintiff denies them all.  Case goes to trial, and -- guess what? -- they were all true, and plaintiff has no case.

Defendant moves for all of its attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.420, subdivision (a), all $138,000 or thereabouts, and the trial court awards them all.  Why?  because if the plaintiff had given proper responses to the requests for admissions, there would have been no trial, and no fees.  The Code makes it mandatory to award costs of proof of that which should have been admitted in response to requests for admissions.  And the fees were the costs of proof.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  Moral of the story hardly needs stating.

Hat tip to the new, and very good, California Attorney's Fees.

Full post as published by CalBizLit on June 06, 2008 (boomark / email).