Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02060/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02060-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Grady; Jennifer Grady, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Bank of Elmwood; Elmwood Financial

Corporation; Jonathan Levin; Sarah Levin,

Defendants. _________________________________

Tri City National Bank,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Michael Grady and Jennifer Grady,

Counterdefendant. _________________________________

The Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation as Receiver for Bank of

Elmwood,

Intervenor.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2060-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On July12, 2012, the Levin Defendants claim to have sent Plaintiffs requests for

admissions. Plaintiffs claim that they never received these requests for admissions. Several

motions are now pending before the Court relating to this issue.

The Levin Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the premise that

Plaintiffs failure to timely respond to the requests for admissions cause those requests to be

Case 2:11-cv-02060-JAT Document 120 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

deemed admitted. Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment claiming those facts are not

admitted; and, in addition to responding to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs

responded to the requests for admissions. 

Thereafter the Levin Defendants moved to strike the responses to the requests for

admissions as untimely and have moved for summary disposition of the motion to strike

claiming Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion to strike. Plaintiff opposed summary

disposition arguing that they fully briefed this issue in their opposition to the motion for

summary judgment.

The Levin Defendants main argument for not allowing Plaintiffs’ late responses to the

requests for admissions is that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s avowal that he did not receive them is not

credible. Further the Levin Defendants argue that their July 25, 2012 notice of service put

Plaintiffs on inquiry notice that they were supposed to have been served with requests for

admissions back on July 12, 2012.

Given (1) that this Court cannot conclude that the July 25, 2012 notice of service is

equal to service on July 12, 2012, and (2) that this Court has no basis to conclude that

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s avowal is false; the Court will allow Plaintiffs’ late responses to the

requests for admissions. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 85) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike (Doc. 99) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary disposition (Doc. 109)

is denied.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02060-JAT Document 120 Filed 12/14/12 Page 2 of 2