Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00086/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00086-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

TIFFANY DRIVER PLAINTIFF 

 

VS. 3:19CV00086 JM 

RUBEN HERNANDEZ DEFENDANT 

ORDER 

In the pending motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to deem admitted her Requests for Admission 

propounded on the Defendant on February 8, 2020. There has been no response from the Defendant. In 

fact, there has been no communication from the Defendant in months, even when directed to do so by the 

Court. 

Rule 36 provides that a party, within the permissible scope of discovery, may serve on any other 

party a written request to admit the truth of any matters relating to facts or the application of law to fact. 

See Quasius v. Schwan Food Co., 596 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2010). “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 

days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written 

answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 

36(a)(3). “When a matter is admitted, it is ‘conclusively established’ for purposes of the action, “unless 

the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Quasius, 596 F.3d at 950. 

Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3), the Court deems admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission which are 

listed in, and attached to, this motion. (ECF No. 26, 26-1). Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2020. 

 ___________________________ 

 James M. Moody Jr. 

 United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00086-JM Document 30 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 1