If the Defendant Does Not Admit Something at the Beginning of the Case, Can I Claim Expenses for Having to Prove Those Facts?

Admit It: You’re Wrong!

Imagine you enter a case. For example: the Defendant was driving their car and crashes into you. You know they were negligent. You know they should just admit it.

Requests For Admission In California

Once you file the lawsuit in California, you can formally send “Requests for Admission” (RFAs) to ask the Defendant to admit certain facts.

Examples?

For example: Admit that you were driving your car at the time of the Incident.

Or: Admit that when the Incident occurred, your car had no mechanical problems.

Or: In California, sometimes if you have a medical emergency when a crash happens, that can be a valid defense. So the RFA might be: Admit that you were not experiencing any medical problems when the Incident occurred.

And What If The Defendant Does Not Admit?

Well, if the other side does not admit the RFA, then you may still have to spend money to prove that fact. For example, you might need to take the deposition of the defendant driver to ask those same questions and prove the facts.

Does The Law Protect Me In This?

The law in California protects the Party that has to prove these facts, when the opposing Party should have admitted them from the beginning.

The legal term for this is “cost-of-proof sanctions” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

There was a recent Court of Appeal case on this subject, so I wanted to mention it. The case is Gamo v. Merrell, cited as 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 511.

What Does CCP 2033.420 Say?

This is what section 2033.420 of the CCP says:
I’ll give the main points here, but it’s taken directly from the law:

“If a party fails to admit… the truth of any matter when requested… and if the requesting party thereafter proves… the truth of that matter, the requesting party may move the court for an order requiring the other party to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”

The courts are required to impose those sanctions unless:

an objection to the request was sustained or a response was waived;
the requested admission was of no substantial importance;
the party who failed to admit had reasonable grounds to believe they would prevail on that point; or
there was some other good reason for not admitting.

What Happened In Gamo v. Merrell?

Here, the Plaintiff bought a Maserati from a dealership. The Plaintiff, who was 81 years old at the time of purchase, alleged that the salespeople orally told him they would give him a $6,500 credit for his trade-in vehicle.

A few days after the sale, the Plaintiff’s wife allegedly reviewed the sales contract… and discovered that they had only given him a $2,000 credit for his trade-in.

The Plaintiff said he would not have bought the Maserati or turned in his car if he had known they would only give him less than $6,500.

What Were The RFAs In This Case?

The dealership asked the Plaintiff to admit, among other things:

that he initialed each page of the contract,
that he was given time to read the contract,
that the dealership pointed out the part of the contract where it said his trade-in was worth $2,000,
that he had no condition preventing him from reading and understanding the contract, and
that the dealership had not altered the terms of the contract.

The Plaintiff denied or withdrew his admissions on key points. The Jury ruled in favor of the dealership, and the dealership then requested cost-of-proof sanctions.

The case also touches on financial elder abuse under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA, under California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.). But I won’t go too deep into that part.