However, Boyfriend Not Awarded Fees On Appeal Based On Failing To Identify A Fee Entitlement Basis.
As the famous comedian Jackie Mason once quipped, “Money is not the most important thing in the world. Love is. Fortunately, I love money.” That quote well encapsulates the result in the next case we post on.
Plaintiff boyfriend, over a period of time, loaned a total of $110,000 to his girlfriend—his life savings. We surmise that after things soured, boyfriend sued girlfriend for repayment of the loan, eventually recovering $111,385 against her. During the litigation, boyfriend propounded three key requests for admission going to the heart of the case, which drew boilerplate objection and denials. After his court victory, boyfriend sought to recoup $44,242.50 in costs of proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420, which allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees if certain relevant requests for admission are denied without substantial justification.
The trial court awarded boyfriend his entire request, which triggered an appeal by girlfriend in Fuller v. Campos, Case No. B296403 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 24, 2020) (unpublished).
The 2/2 DCA affirmed. Plaintiff’s counsel did a good job of explaining the fees being sought, carefully only claiming expenses incurred after the requests for admission were denied. There was no requirement for itemized billing statements, because counsel’s breakdown of the hours expended was sufficient. Boyfriend also requested attorney’s fees on appeal (if he won, which he did), but the appellate panel concluded nothing in section 2033.420 contained authorization for an award of “fees on fees,” the costs of bringing the costs of proof sanctions motion such that the lack of fee entitlement for such trial fees could not justify an award of appellate fees either.
Comments