## Facts

- Timothy Grace and his wife sued Levik Mansourian (driver) and Satina Mansourian (vehicle owner) after an intersection collision in which Levik struck Grace’s vehicle.
- Levik told the traffic investigator he entered on a yellow light and believed he could clear the intersection before it turned red.
- An eyewitness reported to the investigator and later in a recorded statement that Levik ran the red light.
- Plaintiffs alleged Grace suffered ankle, back, and neck injuries, needed medical treatment, and incurred wage loss; the wife asserted loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs served requests for admissions (RFAs) seeking admissions on negligence, causation, and damages (including that Levik ran a red light; his conduct was negligent and a substantial factor; Grace was not negligent; the accident caused injury and required treatment; and that treatment, bills, and wage loss were caused by the accident).
- Defendants denied essentially all liability, causation, and damages RFAs, while admitting basic facts such as the drivers’ identities and vehicle ownership.
- Defendants’ orthopedic expert agreed Grace sustained a bimalleolar ankle fracture from the collision and that ankle surgery was necessary.
- Plaintiffs prevailed at trial and then moved for “costs of proof” under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420, asserting defendants unreasonably denied matters that should have been admitted.
- The trial court denied the costs-of-proof motion in full, and plaintiffs appealed that postjudgment order.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420 after defendants denied RFAs on liability, causation, and damages.
2. Whether defendants had a reasonable ground to believe they would prevail (or other good reason) for denying RFAs on (a) running the red light/negligence and (b) causation and treatment relating to Grace’s ankle fracture.
3. Whether defendants reasonably denied RFAs addressing broader claimed injuries and damages (back/neck injury, all treatment and bills, and wage loss).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It held defendants lacked a reasonable basis to deny RFAs concerning (1) liability for the collision (running the red light/negligence) and (2) Grace’s ankle fracture and certain related treatment, given the eyewitness evidence and defendants’ own expert concessions.
- It reversed the order to the extent it denied costs of proof on those matters and remanded for the trial court to determine a reasonable amount of recoverable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred to prove them.
- It otherwise affirmed, concluding defendants had reasonable grounds to deny RFAs concerning other claimed injuries and broader damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420, a party that unreasonably fails to admit a matter in response to RFAs must pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in proving that matter at trial, unless a statutory exception applies.
- A court must not award costs of proof if the responding party had reasonable ground to believe it would prevail on the matter, or had other good reason for failing to admit.
- RFAs are intended to eliminate the need to prove matters that are essentially undisputed; costs of proof function to shift expenses caused by an unreasonable denial.
- A denial may be unreasonable when the record (including the denying party’s own evidence or expert opinion) leaves no genuine dispute on the requested admission.
- Denials may be reasonable where evidence supports a legitimate dispute over the scope of injury, reasonableness/necessity of all treatment, or claimed economic loss.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 2033.420 required an award of costs of proof for defendants’ unreasonable denials of liability and of causation and certain treatment for Grace’s ankle fracture, but not for denials addressing disputed claims of additional injuries and broader damages; the matter was remanded to calculate the appropriate award.


Grace v. Mansourian, 240 Cal. App. 4th 523, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 (Ct. App. 2015)