Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc.
8 Cal. App. 5th 1223
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rhule, a former employee, sued WaveFront for wrongful termination. During discovery, Rhule admitted Requests for Admission (RFAs) Nos. 28 and 29, then sought leave under CCP §2033.300 to withdraw those admissions as mistaken.
- The trial court granted Rhule's motion to withdraw/amend the admissions but (according to the minute order) imposed conditions and set a later hearing on attorney fees; no reporter's transcript of the hearings is in the appellate record.
- WaveFront moved for attorney fees under CCP §2033.300, seeking $10,000; the trial court ultimately awarded $8,125 pursuant to subdivision (c) of §2033.300.
- Rhule argued on appeal that §2033.300 does not authorize attorney fees (only "costs") and that the trial court abused its discretion (e.g., allegedly only authorized a "nominal" fee and did not permit fees for re-deposing him).
- The Court of Appeal held the record was inadequate to assess discretionary error but decided as a matter of law that §2033.300 can authorize reasonable attorney fees as a condition of granting withdrawal of admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP §2033.300 authorizes awarding attorney fees as a condition of allowing withdrawal/amendment of admissions | Rhule: statute mentions only "costs," not attorney fees; thus fees are unauthorized | WaveFront: fees are costs (see §1033.5) and §2033.300(c) allows "just" conditions not limited to listed examples | The statute may authorize reasonable attorney fees: costs can include fees and the statute permits other just conditions beyond the enumerated examples |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $8,125 in fees | Rhule: court limited fee authorization at hearing ("nominal"), did not permit fees for re-deposing, and some hours were unreasonable | WaveFront: trial court properly exercised discretion and reduced the amount requested, evidencing deliberation | Court: no adequate record (no transcripts or settled statements) to show abuse; presumes trial court acted correctly and affirms |
| Whether prevailing-party status is required to recover fees under §2033.300 | Rhule: implied that fees should follow prevailing-party logic | WaveFront: statute contemplates conditions on granting the motion (i.e., fees can be imposed when motion granted) | Court: prevailing-party status not required; statute allows conditions on granting the motion |
| Whether appellate record suffices to review fee award | Rhule: contested trial-court statements and reductions; urged review of reasonableness | WaveFront: record is adequate to affirm | Court: record inadequate—absent transcript/settled statement, cannot evaluate discretionary determinations, so appellate challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 (1987) (appellant bears burden of providing adequate record to show trial-court error)
- Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist., 79 Cal.App.4th 440 (2000) (absence of record of trial proceedings precludes reviewing claimed abuse of discretion in fee awards)
- Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal.3d 564 (1986) (appellant must show reversible error by an adequate record)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (appellate courts presume trial court rulings correct absent showing of error)
- Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery, 5 Cal.App.5th 476 (2016) (standard of review for attorney-fee orders is abuse of discretion)
- Gardner v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.3d 335 (1986) (presumption of correctness may be overcome when trial court entirely fails to exercise discretion)
- Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 79 Cal.App.4th 1127 (2000) (significant reduction from request evidences exercise of discretion)