In Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad (Case No. G065313, October 29, 2026), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a party seeking fees after the opposing party unreasonably denies a request for admission later proved true must identify the actual fees it incurred proving the denied issues. The Fourth District took the opportunity to “publish this case to remind litigants of their duties in responding to requests for admission” and to “encourage precision when moving for cost-of-proof fees.”

This case arose from a catering services agreement between plaintiff restaurant group and defendant regarding the Masters golf tournament in Georgia. The restaurant group provided catering services for defendant’s family at the Masters and invoiced him roughly $75,000. Defendant believed he was overcharged and refused to pay. During discovery, defendant denied a request for admission that stated: “Admit, that YOU contracted with Plaintiff for food and catering services for the entire seven days of [the Masters], in April of 2022” (the request).

After prevailing on its breach of contract claim, the restaurant group moved for approximately $82,000 in cost-of-proof fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, subdivision (a). Defendant opposed. The trial court granted the restaurant group’s fee motion, but only in the amount of $1,950. Both parties appealed.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, subdivision (a), if a party fails to admit the truth in response to a request for admission, and the requesting party later proves the matter true, the requesting party may seek reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in making that proof. Section 2033.420, subdivision (b), explains that the trial court “shall make this order” unless an exception set forth in subdivisions (b)(1)–(4) applies.

Defendant argued that no cost-of-proof fees should have been awarded because the restaurant group did not actually prove the entirety of the request, which defendant claimed required admission of five facts: (1) defendant and all his representatives included in the definition of “YOU,” (2) contracted with the restaurant group for food and services, (3) for seven days, (4) for the entirety of each day, i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and (5) that this contract was entered into in April 2022. Put another way, defendant argued that there were reasonable grounds to deny the request and one of the exceptions applies. (See § 2033.420, subds. (b)(3)-(4).)

Unpersuaded, the Court of Appeal emphasized certain litigant responsibilities under section 2033.220:

• The responding party must provide “a response … as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to” it. (§ 2033.220, subd. (a).)
• The response must “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” 
  (§ 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).)
• The response must “[d]eny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.” 
  (§ 2033.220, subd. (b)(2).)

And despite agreeing that “the request was unfocused” and that the restaurant group perhaps did not prove “every ancillary fact set forth in the request,” the appellate court explained that defendant nonetheless had a duty to comply with section 2033.220 and “admit the portions of the request that were true,” including, for example, that he alone contracted with the restaurant group. The restaurant group was therefore entitled to fees because it was required to, and did, prove at trial that the parties formed a contract.

The restaurant group, however, sought all fees it incurred after the relevant denial without identifying which fees related to proving contract formation.  The Court of Appeal stressed that it was the restaurant group’s burden — not the trial court’s — to segregate the specific fees related to the specific issue (i.e., contract formation). The roughly “97 percent cut,” from the approximately $82,000 sought to the $1,950 award, was therefore reasonable. The appellate court even acknowledged the trial court had the discretion to deny the fee motion outright because the restaurant group failed to segregate fees.

For practitioners, this decision offers helpful reminders regarding responses to requests for admissions under section 2033.220 and fee requests under section 2033.420. Discovery conduct may prove costly long after denying a request for admission; so if a partial admission is required, make the partial admission. That precision is also imperative in requesting fees. As the prevailing party requesting fees, how you present the matter before the trial court can be the difference between a nominal recovery and tens of thousands of dollars for your client.