However, RFA Costs Of Proof Sanctions For Plaintiff Were Reversed.
In Watkins v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. A145579 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 26, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $3,217.50 judgment against defendant based on a meal break claim, but lost nine other unrelated claims based primarily on discrimination. The lower court awarded plaintiff $41,300.28 in routine costs as well as $31,596 in costs-of-proof sanctions for allegedly improperly denying a request for admission later proven at trial.
This one was a “split” verdict on appeal, with the appellate court affirming the routine costs award but reversing the costs-of-proof sanctions award.
With respect to the routine costs award, plaintiff did receive a net monetary recovery, with Michell v. Olick, 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1201 (1996) being “on all fours” because it recognized that prevailing on one claim with a net recovery could still entitle a plaintiff to costs even if the defense obtained dismissal of other claims where the successful claims was unrelated to the other dismissed claims. In reaching this result, the appellate court found that the reasoning of Sears v. Baccaglio, 60 Cal.App.4th 1136 (1998)—which held that an award of costs in these situations was “discretionary” rather than mandatory in nature—did not compel reversal because at least one other appellate court had disagreed with Sears on this point (see David S. Karton, A Law Corp. v. Dougherty, 231 Cal.App.4th 600, 613 (2014)) and the lower court’s decision was no abuse of discretion even under the Sears test. Defendant also argued that it was the successful party based on obtaining a dismissal of other claims, but the reviewing court found that this likely only relates to dismissal of an entire action (Brown v. Desert Christian Center, 193 Cal.App.4th 733, 738 (2011)) and was at odds with the result reached in Michell.
That brought the appellate court to the RFA costs-of-proof sanctions award. The award was found to be an abuse of discretion given that the defense fell within an exception—it had a good faith basis to deny the RFA. The defense did a good job of opposing the RFA sanctions motion below by showing it made an inquiry of an individual before making the RFA denial, which the appellate court found to be a credible basis for denying the RFA.
Comments