A party defending a breach of contract lawsuit may have legitimate grounds to dispute the amount claimed. That does not necessarily justify denying that a contract existed in the first place.
In Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad (Oct. 29, 2026, G065313), the California Court of Appeal examined a defendant’s blanket denial of a request for admission concerning the existence of a catering contract.
The plaintiff ultimately proved the contract at trial and sought $81,875 in attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. Although the court found that the defendant’s denial warranted an award of cost-of-proof fees, it awarded only $1,950.
The decision addresses two recurring issues in California civil litigation: how parties must respond to requests for admission containing multiple factual propositions, and what evidence is necessary to recover attorney fees incurred proving improperly denied matters.
A Catering Agreement Without a Signed Contract
Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC operated a restaurant in Orange County.
In March 2022, John Hagestad and his wife approached the restaurant’s chief operating officer about providing catering services for their family and guests during the Masters golf tournament in Augusta, Georgia.
The parties exchanged communications concerning the proposed services. The restaurant prepared a menu covering seven days of breakfasts and dinners for approximately 20 to 30 guests. The Hagestads approved the menu.
They did not sign a written contract or discuss the price.
During the tournament, the restaurant provided food, beverages, and catering services for five days. The family departed two days earlier than originally anticipated.
After the event, the restaurant submitted an invoice for $74,960, including a $5,000 discount.
Hagestad disputed the amount and refused to pay. The restaurant subsequently withdrew the discount and added another $5,000 for the burden and delay associated with seeking payment, increasing its demand to $84,960.
The restaurant sued for breach of contract and common counts, although it later dismissed the common counts claim before trial.
The central dispute concerned the reasonable value of the services provided.
The Request for Admission That Created the Fee Dispute
During discovery, the restaurant served a request for admission asking Hagestad to admit that he had contracted with the plaintiff to provide food and catering services for the entire seven days of the tournament.
Hagestad objected that the request was vague, ambiguous, and compound.
Subject to those objections, he denied the request in its entirety.
The request was imperfectly drafted. It combined the existence of a contract with additional factual propositions concerning the duration and scope of the catering arrangement.
At trial, however, Hagestad acknowledged that the restaurant had provided food and services. His principal disagreement concerned their reasonable value.
The jury found in favor of the restaurant and awarded $60,391.
Following trial, the restaurant sought $81,875 in attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, arguing that Hagestad’s denial had required it to prove the existence of the contract.
The trial court agreed that some cost-of-proof fees were recoverable, but awarded only $1,950.
Both parties appealed.
A Party Must Admit the Portions of a Request That Are True
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 requires responses to requests for admission to be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
When part of a requested admission is true, the responding party must admit that portion and deny or appropriately qualify the remainder.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the restaurant’s request contained several propositions and that not all of them were established at trial.
For example, the jury was not asked to determine whether the parties had contracted for exactly seven days of services.
Nevertheless, the existence of a contractual arrangement was supported by the parties’ communications and the services actually provided.
Hagestad could have admitted that he contracted for some catering services while denying or qualifying the disputed details.
Instead, he denied the entire request.
The appellate court concluded that this blanket denial failed to satisfy section 2033.220.
Because the plaintiff subsequently proved that the parties had formed a contract, it was entitled to recover reasonable expenses attributable to proving that fact, subject to the statutory requirements.
The ruling is significant because an objection that a request is compound does not necessarily excuse an unequivocal denial of every factual proposition within it.
Here, Hagestad’s objections had not been sustained. His response denied the entire request, and the plaintiff proceeded to prove the contractual relationship at trial.
When Can a Party Recover Attorney Fees for an Improper Denial?
Section 2033.420 permits a party to recover reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred proving a matter that the opposing party failed to admit.
The statute is intended to encourage parties to narrow factual disputes before trial.
A cost-of-proof award is compensatory rather than punitive. It reimburses expenses that could have been avoided if the requested admission had been properly made.
The statute also recognizes exceptions.
For example, fees may be unavailable if the requested admission was of no substantial importance, the responding party had reasonable grounds to believe it would prevail on the matter, or another statutory exception applies.
Hagestad argued that he had reasonable grounds to deny the request because the parties had not agreed on a price and the contractual terms were uncertain.
The appellate court rejected that argument.
The parties’ communications established that they agreed to the provision of catering services. The absence of an agreed price did not necessarily prevent formation of an enforceable contract because the price could be determined objectively.
The court therefore affirmed the determination that Hagestad’s blanket denial justified a cost-of-proof award.
Why the Plaintiff Recovered Only $1,950
The restaurant sought $81,875 in attorney fees, representing substantial litigation work performed after Hagestad denied the request.
The problem was that much of the trial concerned the value of the catering services rather than whether the parties had formed a contract.
Section 2033.420 authorizes recovery only for reasonable expenses incurred proving the particular matter improperly denied.
The plaintiff was required to distinguish fees attributable to proving contract formation from fees incurred litigating other issues, including damages.
It failed to make that allocation adequately.
The trial court concluded that proving contract formation did not require the amount of attorney time claimed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the $1,950 award.
The appellate court emphasized that the party seeking fees bears the burden of identifying recoverable work. A trial judge is not required to reconstruct an undifferentiated billing request or determine which portions might qualify under the statute.
For litigators, this is an important limitation.
Even when a party establishes that an opponent improperly denied a request for admission, the resulting fee award depends on proof of the expenses actually incurred establishing the denied matter.
The Separate Dispute Over Court Reporter Costs
The restaurant also sought $25,741.20 in court reporter costs.
The trial court disallowed the entire amount.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, certain court reporter fees are recoverable as litigation costs. However, transcripts of court proceedings that were not ordered by the court generally are not recoverable unless another law authorizes them.
The restaurant failed to establish that its claimed expenses satisfied the applicable requirements.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the order striking those costs.
This portion of the decision reinforces the need to establish a statutory basis for each category of litigation expense and provide sufficient supporting documentation when recovery is disputed.
Practical Implications for California Commercial Litigation
Requests for admission can be particularly useful in contract disputes where the parties disagree about damages but certain underlying facts are established.
A defendant may dispute whether an invoice accurately reflects the agreed services or their reasonable value. That position does not necessarily justify denying that the parties entered into a contractual relationship.
A qualified admission can preserve legitimate defenses while narrowing the matters that must be proved at trial.
The decision also has implications for parties drafting requests for admission.
Although the plaintiff ultimately obtained a cost-of-proof award, the appellate court criticized the request for combining multiple propositions. More focused requests would have reduced the opportunity for disagreement over what the defendant was being asked to admit.
For parties seeking fees under section 2033.420, the decision illustrates the importance of identifying the work attributable to each denied matter.
Billing records and supporting declarations should distinguish time spent proving the denied fact from time devoted to unrelated issues.
In Hanna Carroll, the plaintiff established a basis for recovering fees but could not justify the amount requested.
The resulting award was a small fraction of the $81,875 sought.
Elpis Law represents businesses and individuals in California commercial litigation, including contract disputes, discovery proceedings, and trial-related matters.
Legal Authorities
- Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad (Oct. 29, 2026, G065313), Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, certified for publication — opinion
- Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 — official text
- Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420 — official text
- Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 — official text
Related practice areas: Civil Litigation · Contracts and Business Torts