Fuller v. Campos CA2/2

Filed 12/24/20 Fuller v. Campos CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

BERTRAM FULLER, B296403

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC069237) v.

YUNUEN N. CAMPOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ramona G. See, Judge. Affirmed.

Magnanimo & Dean, Lauren A. Dean and Frank A. Magnanimo for Defendant and Appellant.

Holmes, Taylor, Cowan & Jones, Andrew B. Holmes and Patrick V. Chesney for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

The trial court awarded $44,242.50 in attorney fees to a party who proved at trial the truth of three requests for admission the responding party failed to admit. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding these costs of proof, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Bertram Fuller (boyfriend) and Yunuen Campos (girlfriend) dated from 2005 to 2010. “While they dated, girlfriend would ask boyfriend to borrow money. Boyfriend obliged, and made a series of interest free loans to her that, in total, came to more than $110,000, which was effectively boyfriend’s ‘life savings.’” Boyfriend sued girlfriend for (1) breach of contract, (2) money lent, (3) fraudulent inducement of contract, (4) intentional misrepresentation, and (5) trespass to chattels for girlfriend’s alleged “key[ing]” of boyfriend’s car after he started dating another woman. Boyfriend served girlfriend with three requests for admission (RFAs) related to the breach of contract and money lent claims: (1) “Admit that between 2005 and May 2010, YOU borrowed in excess of $100,000 from Plaintiff”; (2) “Admit that YOU have borrowed money from Plaintiff”; (3) “Admit that YOU have never repaid any of the money YOU borrowed from Plaintiff.” Following boilerplate objections, girlfriend responded to each RFA with a denial. The case proceeded to an eight-day bench trial. With only boyfriend’s breach of contract and money lent claims remaining,1