The California Court of Appeal has upheld a trial court's decisions in a breach of contract case involving Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC and John Hagestad. The court ruled on October 29, 2026, affirming the lower court's orders regarding cost-of-proof fees and court reporter costs. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of parties when responding to requests for admission in legal disputes.

The case began when Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group, known for its high-end catering services, provided meals for Hagestad's family during the prestigious Masters golf tournament in Georgia. The parties had a verbal agreement on the menu but did not finalize a written contract or discuss pricing. After the event, the restaurant sent Hagestad an invoice totaling $74,960, which he disputed, claiming he was overcharged. The disagreement led to a lawsuit filed by the Hanna Group against Hagestad for breach of contract.

During the legal proceedings, the Hanna Group served Hagestad with requests for admissions, including one that asked him to admit he contracted for food and catering services for the entire week of the Masters. Hagestad denied the request, leading to a trial where the jury ultimately found in favor of the Hanna Group, awarding them $60,391. Following the trial, the Hanna Group sought $81,875 in cost-of-proof fees due to Hagestad's denial of the request for admission.

The trial court partially granted the Hanna Group's request, awarding them only $1,950 in cost-of-proof fees while denying their request for $25,741.20 in court reporter costs. Both parties appealed these decisions, leading to the current ruling by the Court of Appeal.

In its ruling, the court stated, "Hagestad had a duty to admit the parts of the request that were true," noting that he failed to do so by denying the entire request. The court emphasized the importance of responding accurately to requests for admission, as these can significantly affect the outcome of a case. The court also highlighted that the Hanna Group did not adequately demonstrate the specific fees incurred in proving the contract formation, justifying the lower award of cost-of-proof fees.

The court further explained that the Hanna Group failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for court reporter costs. The trial court had struck this request because the Hanna Group did not show that the costs were for transcripts ordered by the court or otherwise authorized by law. The Court of Appeal found no error in this decision, affirming that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming costs.

This ruling impacts future cases by reinforcing the necessity for parties to respond truthfully and accurately to requests for admission, as well as the importance of providing clear evidence when claiming costs in legal proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder for litigants to be precise in their legal documentation and responses.

Looking ahead, it is unclear if either party will seek further appeal in this matter. The court's decision in this case may set a precedent for similar disputes involving requests for admission and cost claims in California.