Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: BC715608, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC715608    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 58

Cates v. The Westside Group

Case No. BC715608

Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees

Hearing: January 24, 2024

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Cates’s Complaint alleged causes of action against Defendant The Westside Group for breach of oral contract and common count. He alleged that he was owed annual bonuses exceeding $100,000. (Compl., ¶¶ 5-10.) In March 2019, Defendant Westside requested that Plaintiff admit (1) there was no agreement (RFA No. 3); (2) Westside did not breach any agreement (RFA No. 10); and (3) Plaintiff sustained no damages (RFA No. 11.) (Cabanday Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 1 (First Request for Admissions), Ex. 2 (Plaintiff’s response].) Defendant argues that Plaintiff unreasonably and in bad faith denied each of the requests.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 provides in relevant part as follows:

“(a) If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees.

(b) The court shall make this order unless it finds any of the following:

(1) An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under Section 2033.290.

(2) The admission sought was of no substantial importance.

(3) The party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter.

(4) There was other good reason for the failure to admit.”

Here, Defendant has carried its initial burden that it proved at trial the truth of facts which, in discovery, Plaintiff had refused to admit.

Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish an exception to Code of Civil procedure section 2033.420, subdivision (b). (Spahn v. Richards (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 208, 216; Samsky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 517, 523 [party seeking to avoid sanctions has the burden of establishing one or more of the exceptions in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, subdivision (b)].)

Plaintiff argues that he had “good reason” to deny the admission.

“ ‘In evaluating whether a “good reason” exists for denying a request to admit, “a court may properly consider whether at the time the denial was made the party making the denial held a reasonably entertained good faith belief that the party would prevail on the issue at trial.” ’ ” (Spahn, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th 208, 216.) That is, it is not enough for the party to simply contest the issue; rather, a “ ‘party's reasonable belief must be grounded in the evidence;’ ” and “ ‘ “there must be some reasonable basis for contesting the issue in question before sanctions can be avoided.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 217.)

The question is not whether the responding party “had some minimum quantum of evidence to support its denial,” but whether “the litigant had a reasonable, good faith belief he or she would prevail on the issue at trial.” (Orange County Water Dist. v. The Arnold Engineering Co. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 96, 119.) “Consideration of this question requires not only an assessment of the substantiality of the evidence for and against the issue known or available to the party, but also the credibility of that evidence, the likelihood that it would be admissible at trial and persuasive to the trier of fact, the relationship of the issue to other issues anticipated to be part of trial (including the issue's importance), the party's efforts to investigate the issue and obtain further evidence, and the overall state of discovery at the time of the denials and thereafter.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff was a poor witness. His testimony was contradictory.  He offered a theory of recovery that varied from what his complaint asserted. But the Court does not find he brought the action in bad faith.  More significantly, section 2033.420 is not a prevailing party attorney fee statute.  It authorizes reimbursement of the reasonable expenses to prove what had been denied. Even if the Court concluded some expenses were appropriate, Defendant’s request is excessive.  Defendant seeks four years of attorney’s fees and over $120,000.  Defendant’s evidence for this amount is insufficiently specific to enable the Court to assess whether it is reasonable.

The motion for attorney’s fees is denied.