Title: PHILLIP WOLF V. LARRY ALLEN

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

PHILLIP WOLF V. LARRY ALLEN2008 WY 136196 P.3d 775Case Number: S-08-0080Decided: 11/18/2008
November 
18, 2008

 
 

PHILLIP 
WOLF,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.LARRY 
ALLEN,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofSubletteCounty

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Phillip 
Wolf, Pro se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Richard 
Mathey of Green River, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant Phillip 
Wolf requests relief from the district court's grant of summary judgment to 
Appellee Larry Allen.  Appellant 
contends that the district court abused its discretion when it deemed certain 
facts to have been admitted because of Appellant's failure timely to respond to 
requests for admission.  Finding no 
abuse of discretion, we affirm.

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      The parties have 
agreed to state the issue as follows:  "Should relief be afforded [Appellant] 
under W.R.C.P. 60(b)?"  However, no 
appeal was taken from the denial of Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion, and the only 
appealable order listed in Appellant's Notice of Appeal is the "Court Order 
granting summary judgment to the defendant as well as the Court Order deeming 
his admission to discovery questions."1  This Court, therefore, only has 
jurisdiction over this appeal as it relates to the Order for Summary Judgment 
and any order subsumed therein.  
Appellant's argument, though phrased as an appeal from a Rule 60(b) 
motion, is essentially an argument that he should have been allowed to withdraw 
his admissions under W.R.C.P. 36(b).

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Appellee served 
Appellant with a Request for Admissions on September 5, 2007.  Appellee filed a Notice of Deemed 
Admissions on October 12.  Three 
days later, Appellee received Appellant's responses to the Request for 
Admissions, which were postmarked October 6.  Consequently, Appellee withdrew his 
Notice of Deemed Admissions.  In a 
number of his responses to the requested admissions, Appellant alleged that he 
was unable properly to respond because documents were not attached for his 
review.  Appellee, who contends that 
the documents were attached to the first Request for Admissions, served 
Appellant with a Second Request for Admissions on October 16.  When Appellant did not respond within 
the 30 days required by W.R.C.P. 36, Appellee filed a second Notice of Deemed 
Admissions on December 3, 2007, and a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 2, 
2008.  Appellant filed a Response to 
Notice of Deemed Admissions by Plaintiff on January 16, 2008, alleging inter alia, that there were no documents 
attached to the Second Request for Admissions.  Appellant also filed an affidavit in 
support of his Response to the Notice of Deemed Admissions and in support of his 
Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.  In that affidavit, Appellant admitted 
that he did not timely respond to the Second Request for Admissions but argued 
that the district court should not deem the relevant points admitted because 
Appellant had informed Appellee that the relevant documents were not attached 
and that he could not properly respond without seeing the documents.  In support of his Motion for Summary 
Judgment, Appellee filed the affidavit of the paralegal who prepared the Second 
Request for Admissions for service, and another paralegal who had verified her 
work.  Both paralegals attested that 
they had taken particular care to attach and include all relevant documents 
because of Appellant's claim that the earlier submission was incomplete.  The district court deemed admitted the 
points contained in Appellee's Second Request for Admissions and granted summary 
judgment against Appellant on all claims in an Order for Summary Judgment on 
March 4, 2008.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶4]      Appellant has 
made no argument with regard to the substance of the Order for Summary 
Judgment.  He attacks the basis for 
the summary judgment by arguing that it was an abuse of discretion for the 
district court to deem admitted the points contained in Appellee's Second 
Request for Admissions.  "District 
courts have broad discretion to manage pretrial discovery matters.  We, therefore, review the district 
court's decision on a motion to withdraw or amend admissions under Rule 36(b) by 
applying the abuse of discretion standard."  Hodges v. Lewis & Lewis, Inc., 2005 
WY 134, ¶ 11, 121 P.3d 138, 142 (Wyo. 2005) (citations omitted).  

 
 
A 
court abuses its discretion when it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of 
reason under the circumstances.  The 
party who is attacking the trial court's ruling has the burden to establish an 
abuse of discretion, and the ultimate issue is whether the court could 
reasonably conclude as it did. 

 
 

Three 
Way, Inc. v. Burton Enters., Inc., 
2008 WY 18, ¶ 16, 177 P.3d 219, 225 (Wyo. 2008) (citations omitted) (quoting Doenz v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 949 P.2d 464, 465 (Wyo. 
1997)).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      It is undisputed 
that Appellant did not timely respond to Appellee's Second Request for 
Admissions.  W.R.C.P. 36(a) states 
that, with regard to requests for admission,

 
 
[t]he 
matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or 
within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the 
request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written 
answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or the party's 
attorney[.]

 
 
Therefore, 
the district court was correct in deeming those points admitted to which 
Appellant had failed to respond in a timely manner.  The requirements for withdrawal of an 
admission are set forth in subsection (b) as follows:

 
 
(b)  Effect of admission. -- Any matter 
admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion 
permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.  Subject to the provisions of Rule 16 
governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal of 
amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be 
subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the 
court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining the 
action or defense on the  merits. . 
. . 

 
 
[¶6]      The rule states 
that a court may permit withdrawal of an admission on motion.  Appellant, however, never filed a motion 
requesting withdrawal of his admissions under W.R.C.P. 36(b).  In Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners 
Association, 2007 WY 5, ¶¶ 4, 5, 149 P.3d 735, 736 (Wyo. 2007), we found 
that, where a party had not requested withdrawal of an admission, it was not 
improper for the district court to grant summary judgment based on that 
admission.  The only document we 
have before us2 that touches on the subject of 
withdrawal of the admissions is Appellant's Response to Notice of Deemed 
Admissions by Plaintiff.  In it, 
Appellant did not address the issue of whether the merits of the action would be 
subserved by such relief, as required by Rule 36, but merely reiterated that 
relevant documents were not attached to Appellee's Second Request for 
Admissions.  The district court 
specifically rejected that contention in its Order for Summary Judgment.  We cannot say that the district court 
abused its discretion in allowing the admissions to stand where Appellant did 
not properly request withdrawal of the admissions under Rule 36(b), and where 
Appellant made no argument under the proper standard for such withdrawal in any 
other motion.3  

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶7]      Appellant did not 
request withdrawal of his admissions under Rule 36(b).  The district court did not abuse its 
discretion when it granted summary judgment based on those admissions and we, 
therefore, affirm.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The 
district court did not enter a separate order with regard to Appellant's 
admissions, but did address that question in its Order for Summary 
Judgment.

 
 

2Appellant 
did not designate any portion of the district court record for our review.  We have based our review on the relevant 
documents designated by Appellee.  

 
 

3Out of 
respect for the latitude afforded pro 
se litigants, we have examined the motions filed in the district court to 
see if Appellant, at any point, made a proper argument under Rule 36(b).  We would be less inclined to exercise 
our discretion to conduct this searching review had Appellant appeared before us 
through counsel.