Blanket denial of a partly true request for admission supports cost-of-proof fees, but unsegregated fees cost the winner
Cost-of-proof fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 impose duties on both sides. In Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad, the Fourth District held that a party who flatly denied a partly true request for admission breached his duty to admit what was true. But the caterer that sought $81,875 had not segregated its fees, and the $1,950 award was affirmed.
What happened
A restaurant group, the Hanna Group, catered meals for the Hagestad family at the 2022 Masters in Augusta, Georgia. The parties agreed on a seven-day menu, but they signed no written contract and never discussed price. The Hanna Group served breakfast, dinner, and a full bar for five days, and the family left two days early. Hagestad disputed the invoice and did not pay.
In the ensuing breach of contract suit, the Hanna Group served a request asking Hagestad to admit he had contracted for catering for the entire seven days of the Masters. He objected that the request was vague and ambiguous and compound, and denied it. A jury found for the Hanna Group and awarded $60,391.
The Hanna Group then moved for $81,875 in cost-of-proof fees and sought $40,351.04 in costs, including $25,741.20 in court reporter costs. The trial court awarded $1,950 in fees and struck the reporter costs entirely. Both sides appealed the fee order, and the Hanna Group also appealed the costs order.
Must you admit part of a request for admission?
Yes, if part of it is true. The court accepted that the drafting was imperfect: "We agree that the request was unfocused." That did not excuse the response:
"Here, Hagestad had a duty to admit the parts of the request that were true. (§ 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).) He did not fulfill this duty."
"Due to this blanket denial, the Hanna Group had to prove at trial that the parties formed a contract," and it did. The statutory exceptions did not help. On the objections, the court noted that "none of Hagestad's objections to the request were sustained." On reasonable grounds, the record included a seven-day menu the Hagestads had approved and showed "the parties agreed that the Hanna Group would provide food and services at the Masters," so "it was not reasonable for Hagestad to deny the existence of a contract in the request."
The appellate court also declined to address Hagestad's argument that the trial court should have ruled on the validity of his objections, because he cited no authority and did not analyze the statute.
How do you prove the amount of cost-of-proof fees?
By tying the fees to the denied issue. The court's statement of the moving party's burden is direct:
"A moving party must identify the fees it incurred proving the specific issues that the responding party denied. It cannot outsource this duty to the court."
The Hanna Group sought "all the attorney fees it incurred from the date of Hagestad's denial of the request through trial." But "the trial's primary focus was the value of the Hanna Group's food and services," and the trial court assessed contract formation as "a necessary but minor issue in this case." On appeal the Hanna Group argued the trial court had cut its request by about 97 percent without explanation. The answer: that argument "ignores that it was the Hanna Group's burden to segregate the fees it incurred proving contract formation."
The standard of review did much of the remaining work. "An abuse of discretion is only demonstrated when no reasonable judge could have made the challenged order." And "Because the Hanna Group failed to segregate the fees it incurred proving contract formation, the trial court could have denied the fee motion." An award of $1,950 was therefore not unreasonable.
Are court reporter costs recoverable without proof of what they cover?
Not on this record. The opinion notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(11) allows court reporter fees, while subdivision (b)(5) excludes transcripts not ordered by the court unless authorized by law. The trial court found the Hanna Group had not shown the transcripts were court-ordered or otherwise authorized. The Hanna Group pointed to a purported concession, but the court said Hagestad "never conceded that the lower court could only strike $2,931 in court reporter costs": he argued for striking that amount only "at a minimum" while seeking to strike the whole item. Because the Hanna Group "has not demonstrated on appeal that it provided the lower court with evidence showing the total amount of allowable court reporter costs," the court concluded "the court could reasonably strike its entire claim for $25,741.20 in court reporting costs."
The disposition: "The fee order and the costs order are both affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs incurred in this appeal."
What this means in practice
The decision speaks to both sides of a discovery response and a post-trial motion. A responding party should answer the true part of a request and deny the rest, because an objection that is never sustained does not protect a blanket denial. A moving party should build its fee request around the denied issue, with entries that show what proving that issue cost, rather than presenting everything spent after the denial. Time limits on post-judgment fee motions raise their own traps, as our note on the rule 3.1702 deadline explains.
Key takeaways
- A party must admit the true parts of a request for admission, even an unfocused one, and deny only the rest.
- A blanket denial with objections that were never sustained did not avoid cost-of-proof fees.
- The moving party must identify the fees it incurred proving the specific issues denied, and cannot leave that work to the court.
- Failure to segregate meant the trial court could have denied the fee motion, so a $1,950 award on an $81,875 request was affirmed.
- A claimant who does not show the allowable amount of court reporter costs can lose the whole item.
Why this case shows the value of appellate counsel
Fee and cost orders can look like an afterthought, but here they decided more than $100,000 in claimed fees and costs, and both sides took them to the Court of Appeal. Abuse of discretion review favors the order below, and the opinion shows how far: a reduction of about 97 percent stood because the burden to segregate had never been met in the trial court.
A party facing a similar ruling needs to know what the record contains before deciding whether an appeal can change it. Evidence not offered below will not appear on appeal, and an argument without authority may not be addressed. If a fee or cost order has gone against you, an appellate lawyer can assess it against the record and the standard of review.
What this post is not. This post is attorney advertising and general information about a court decision. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts and record, and appellate deadlines are short and often jurisdictional — talk to appellate counsel about your case promptly.
Facing a ruling you may need to appeal or challenge by writ? Yisrael Gelb · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864