Court notes regarding RFA Cost-of-Proof costs, from Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad (2026)

Requests for admission can be a powerful tool. If the other side denies something it should have admitted, and you later prove it true at trial, you may be able to recover what you spent proving it. These are cost-of-proof fees, per California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

I've blogged about cost-of-proof fees before (see my post on Gamo v. Merrell [LINK]). And on October 29, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, published Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad, which gives more guidance. For both sides of the request.

The Court tells us right up front why it published this case. Two reasons:

“We publish this case to remind litigants of their duties in responding to requests for admission.”

And:

“We also publish this case to encourage precision when moving for cost-of-proof fees. A moving party must identify the fees it incurred proving the specific issues that the responding party denied. It cannot outsource this duty to the court.”

So, one lesson for the party answering the request, and one lesson for the party who served it. Let's tee off.

The facts: a catering order that fell apart

A high-end Orange County restaurant group (the Hanna Group) agreed to cater meals for Defendant Hagestad's family during the Masters golf tournament in Augusta, Georgia. Seven days of meals. Per the Court, “the parties agreed on a menu for seven days of meals but never signed a contract or discussed pricing.”

The family loved the food and service. As the Court puts it: “Then the bill came.”

The Hanna Group invoiced $74,960. “Hagestad believed he had been overcharged and refused to pay.” The Hanna Group then sued him for breach of contract.

The request for admission:

During discovery, the Hanna Group served this request for admission:

“Admit, that YOU contracted with Plaintiff for food and catering services for the entire seven days of the Master’s [sic] Golf Tournament, in April of 2022.”

And “YOU” was a defined term. It included “JOHN S. HAGESTAD and his agents, attorneys, employees, representatives, accountants, and all other natural persons or entities representing and/or acting on his behalf, or purporting to represent and/or act on his behalf.”

Hagestad objected that the request was vague, ambiguous, and compound. Then he answered: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Deny.”

The case went to trial. The jury found for the Hanna Group and awarded $60,391.

After trial, the Hanna Group moved for $81,875 in cost-of-proof fees based on that one denial. The trial court awarded $1,950. Both sides appealed.

The general rule on cost-of-proof fees:

Per CCP 2033.420(a):

“If a party fails to admit . . . the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves . . . 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.”

And “[t]he court shall make this order unless it finds” that an exception applies.

The Court also explains the purpose, citing another case: “The primary purpose of requests for admissions is to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial.” And, “[u]nlike other discovery sanctions, an award of expenses pursuant to [the statute] is not a penalty.”

Lesson one: admit what's true, even in a messy request

Hagestad argued the request packed in multiple facts, and the Hanna Group never proved all of them at trial. And the Court actually agreed with part of that:

“We agree that the request was unfocused. While it primarily sought an admission from Hagestad that the parties formed a contract for catering services at the Masters, it sought admission of multiple ancillary facts.”

Spoiler: that didn't save him.

Per CCP 2033.220(b)(1), each 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.” And the Court cites the Rutter Guide: “[i]f any portion of the [request for admission] is true, the party to whom it is directed must admit that portion.”

Applied here:

“Though the request contained multiple parts, Hagestad had a duty to admit the portions of the request that were true. (§ 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).) For example, he could have admitted that he alone contracted with the Hanna Group to provide some food and services during the Masters and then denied the facts he disputed or provided some other qualification as to the ancillary matters. He did not. He denied the entire request.”

And the objections? None were ever sustained. “Though Hagestad objected, he unequivocally denied the entire request.” The Court notes he had another path: meet and confer and, if that failed, “stood on his objections rather than provide an unequivocal denial.”

The CCP 2033.420(b)(1) argument the Court didn't reach:

Section 2033.420(b) lists four exceptions. The first is when “[a]n objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under Section 2033.290.”

Hagestad argued this exception “is broad enough to allow a trial court to decide whether an objection is (or was) valid in the first instance when evaluating a Section 2033.420 fee request.”

An interesting argument. But here's the Court's response:

“Hagestad cites no authority to support his argument. Nor does he analyze the relevant statute to support his interpretation. As such, we will not address this argument.”

For that, the Court cites Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277: courts may “‘disregard conclusory arguments.’”

So the question is still open. Maybe another litigant tees it up with authority and statutory analysis one day.

Lesson two: $81,875 requested, $1,950 awarded

So the Hanna Group was entitled to cost-of-proof fees. Just not $81,875 of them.

The rule: “The moving party must show that the claimed fees were incurred to prove issues the responding party denied.” And: “The requested amounts must be segregated from costs and fees expended to prove other issues.” The Court also quotes another case: “It is the obligation of the party (and attorney) seeking the fee award ‘to prune the fee request to comply with the law,’ and the party (and attorney) cannot ‘transfer that responsibility onto the trial court.’”

Here, the Hanna Group asked for every fee it incurred from the date of the denial through trial. But the request was about whether a contract was formed, and the trial was mostly about something else: “While the request focused entirely on contract formation, the trial’s primary focus was the value of the Hanna Group’s food and services.”

The Hanna Group argued the trial court never explained “a 97 percent cut.” The Court wasn't moved: “It was not the trial court’s initial duty to comb through these invoices and identify the recoverable fees for the Hanna Group.”

And it could have been worse: “Because the Hanna Group failed to segregate the fees it incurred proving contract formation, the trial court could have denied the fee motion.”

Or, to use golf terms (it was the Masters, after all): the Hanna Group found the green, but it was a long way from the pin.

A side note: draft clear, concise requests for admission

This case is also a reminder for the party serving the requests. The Court called this one “unfocused” and said it “sought admission of multiple ancillary facts.”

And here's a piece I find so important: “The jury was not asked in either the jury instructions or the verdict form to decide whether the contract covered seven days of meals, what meals it included, or whether persons other than Hagestad were parties to the contract.”

Meaning, your ability to recover cost-of-proof fees may tie to what the jurors were actually asked to decide. If a request bundles facts that never make it onto the verdict form, it may be hard to show you “proved” them.

A tighter approach may be one fact per request, tracking the elements the jury will decide. For example: “Admit that you agreed with Plaintiff that Plaintiff would provide catering services to your family during the 2022 Masters Golf Tournament.” Then separate requests for the number of days, the meals, and so on.

That also makes the later fee motion easier. When each request targets one fact, it may be much simpler to show the court exactly which fees you spent proving it.

And quickly, the court reporter costs:

The Hanna Group also sought $25,741.20 in court reporter costs. The trial court struck the entire amount, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Per CCP 1033.5(b)(5), “[t]ranscripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court” are not recoverable except when authorized by law. And the Hanna Group “failed to show that they were for court-ordered transcripts or were otherwise authorized by law.” Once costs are properly objected to, the party claiming them has the burden of proving them.

My final thought:

This all started as a catering order: seven days of meals at a golf tournament, with no signed contract and no agreed price. The Hanna Group technically won the lawsuit. But the litigation kept going, with post-trial motions and appeals from both sides. In the end, it asked for $81,875 in cost-of-proof fees and received $1,950. It asked for $25,741.20 in court reporter costs and received nothing.

Cost-of-proof fees can be a powerful sword. But it may only cut as sharply as the request behind it, and the fee motion that follows.