Stull

Stull v. Sparrow

Caution
112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 239·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 779·2001 Daily Journal DAR 10699·92 Cal. App. 4th 860·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8650
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 3, 2001E028669California3,232 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ramirez, J.

Plaintiff Rachelle Stull (Stull) appeals from a postjudgment order denying her motion for costs and fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033, subdivision (o). She claims that the trial court erred in determining that the defendants’ admission of liability on the eve of trial precluded the order she sought. We disagree and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

According to Stull’s complaint, this action arose on August 30, 1995, when defendant Chad Allan Sparrow (Sparrow) negligently operated a motor vehicle, thereby causing her injury. Defendants Gregory Chapin and Vicky Chapin allegedly owned the vehicle that Sparrow operated with their permission.

On March 19, 1999, after the defendants had filed their answers, Stull served them with a request under section 2033 that they admit liability for the traffic accident. Specifically she asked them to admit that “[djefendants do not contest the fact that they are liable to plaintiff for injuries and damages incurred as the result of the traffic accident identified in the complaint herein.” Defendants responded by objecting to the request on the grounds that it was “vague, ambiguous, and compound.” Defendants also…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.