Judge H. Jay Ford, III, Case SC128395 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Name: Albright ,et al. v. Cale, et al.

Case No.: SC128395

Hearing: 3-30-23

Calendar #: 5

Plaintiff’s Motion for Cost of Proof Sanctions is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

“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.” CCP §2033.420(a).

Plaintiff’s request for cost of proof sanctions in connection with the following issues is DENIED:

1. Issue 1: Establishing Helen Albright’s Ownership of the Albright Property (RFA Nos. 9, 13 (Set One) and RFA Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (Set Two) (Total Costs: $101,030)

2. Issue 2: Establishing Element of Adverse Possession (RFA No. 2 (Set Two) (Total Costs: $12,210)

3. Issue 6: Establishing that Helen Albright did not act with malice in planting the Acacia Trees

Based upon the presentation of the parties at trial, Defendants’ denial of the RFAs identified in connection with Issues 1, 2 and 6 were based upon a good faith belief that they would prevail at trial on these issues. In addition, as Defendants argue, with respect to Issues 1 and 2, the RFAs in question were served early in the litigation and went to the ultimate issue in the case. See Pappas v. Chang (2022) 75 Cal.App.5^th 975, 994 (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying cost of proof sanctions on grounds that RFAs were “served very early in the case and essentially asked plaintiff to admit she could not prevail at trial”)(quoting Universal Home Improvement, Inc. v. Robertson (2020) 51 Cal.App.5^th 116, 128, 130-131).

The Court maintains the case was a close case as to these issues and the outcome was by no means clear, even after trial. See Dec. of S. Chuck, Ex. B, Transcript dated 6-3-22. The issues presented were difficult to decide both factual and legally. That was one of the reasons it took so long for the Court to issue its tentative decision. The Court’s phrase that Plaintiffs “clearly and persuasively” proved the Monumented Line to be superior to the dimensions of the Cale’s lot as shown on the Brentwood Park Map was draw from case law concluding that disputed dimensions of property shown on a recorded map are to be “taken as correct until shown by clear proof to be in error,” not Evidence Code 662. (See, Hoffman v. Van Duzee (1937) 19 Cal.App.2d 517, 519; See also, Weiner v. Fleischman (1991) 54 Cal.3d 476, 485 (Rejecting the the proposition that a court’s reference to “clear proof” is necessarily equivalent to “clear and convincing evidence or a variant of that standard.)

In 1993 and 1994 the Cales counsel concluded that the boundaries of their property overlapped the Plaintiff’s property by approximately 20 feet when measured from the centerline of Rockingham. And it was clear that the original developers intended the Cales’ lot to have the dimensions shown on the Brentwood Park Map. And finally, the lineage of Cales’ acquisition of the their lot from the original developers was senior to the Plaintiff’s. Given what the Cales’ knew at the time they denied the requests for admission, and the absence of any direct evidence regarding the intent of the developers regarding the placement of the Monumented Line and the street facing the Cale’s lot, the Court finds the Cales had a reasonably good faith belief they would prevail on these issues at trial.

1. Issue No. 3—Establishing Cale Trespass (RFA Nos. 5 and 12 (Set Two)) (Total Costs $15,025)

Plaintiff established each of the facts identified in RFA Nos. No. 5-8, 12 and 14 at trial. Plaintiff establishes that Plaintiff spent the amounts claimed to prove these RFAs. Plaintiff also segregates the requested fees by issue. See Dec. of D. Perlman filed on 1-31-23. Based on the evidence presented at trial, Defendants did not have a good faith, reasonable basis to deny these RFAs. “Trespass is an unlawful interference with possession of property. (Citation.) California has adhered firmly to the view that the cause of action for trespass is designed to protect possessory—not necessarily ownership—interests in land from unlawful interference. (Citation.) It is not necessary that the plaintiff own the property. All plaintiff needed to do was to show a possessory right superior to the right of the trespassers.” Orange County Water Dist. v. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 343, 401. The Cales good faith belief they owned the disputed footage at issue did not give them right to trespass on the disputed footage at issue. At all times, the Plaintiffs’ clearly maintained exclusive possession of that parcel. The Cales failed to meet their burden to show they had a good faith belief they would prevail on these issues.

Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to cite any authority allowing recovery of expert fees under CCP §2033.420(b). However, CCP §2033.420(b) allows for recovery of all “reasonable expenses” incurred to prove an unreasonably denied RFA. Defendants attempt to graft the limitations on recoverable pre-trial “costs” as a prevailing party under CCP §1033.5. Defendants fail to cite any authority to limit “reasonable expenses” under CCP §2033.420(b) to recoverable costs under CCP §1033.5.

Plaintiff’s motion for cost of proof sanctions is GRANTED as to Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the amount of $24,280 ($15,025, $1,805 and $7,450).