Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00802/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00802-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

Harold Drennen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sentinel Real Estate Corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0802-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants Sentinel Real Estate, et al., seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s only

remaining claim, Count IV, alleging intentional violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

by refusal to pay overtime. Doc. #31. The Court previously dismissed Counts I, II, and

III of Plaintiff’s complaint as untimely. Doc. #14. For the reasons stated below,

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Background

On June 14, 2005, Defendants served on Plaintiff a set of Requests for Admissions

under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. # 32, Ex. 1. Rule 36(a) required

Plaintiff to respond by July 17, 2005. Plaintiff did not respond. On July 29, 2005, defense

counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel and noted that Plaintiff had not responded to

discovery, including the Request s for Admissions. Doc. #39, Ex. C. Plaintiff still did not

respond. Id. at 2. On August 18, 2005, defense counsel wrote again, noting that Plaintiff’s

counsel had not responded to several letters and had not provided a disclosure statement.

Id., Ex. D. Plaintiff did not respond to the Requests for Admission until September 28, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00802-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Doc. #38.

Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff’s failure to

respond to the Requests for Admissions within the rule-sp ecified time period constitutes

an automatic admission of the requests under Rule 36(a). As a result, Defendant s contend,

Plaintiff has admitted that Defendant paid him for all hours worked, including overtime, and

there is no triable issue of fact on Plaintiff’s alleged Labor Act violation. 

Discussion

Failure to timely respond to request s for admission results in admission of the

matters requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a); see O’Campo v. Hardisty, 262 F.2d 621, 622 (9th Cir.

1958) (granting summary judgment on the basis of imp lied admissions and pleadings.) No

motion to establish the admissions is needed. Rule 36 is self-executing. Id.; Federal Trade

Comm’n v. Medicor, LLC., 217 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Any matter admitted

pursuant to Rule 36 is “conclusively established unless t he court on motion permits

withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Rule 36(b) establishes

the exclusive remedy for withdrawal or amendment of admissions and provides that a court

may do so only “on motion.” Id.; United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 (7th Cir.

1987) (“[t]he proper procedural vehicle through which to attempt to withdraw admissions

made in these circumstances is a motion under Rule 36(b)”).

Plaintiff did not respond to the Requests for Admission within the time required by

Rule 36(a) and thereby admitted the requests under the clear terms of the rule. Plaint iff has

not filed a Rule 36(b) mot ion to withdraw or amend its admissions and provides no

explanation for its failure to respond timely. Plaintiff appears to suggest that he did not

need to respond because his verified complaint denies the allegations set forth in the

request s (Doc. #36 at 4), but he cites no authority for this novel proposition and case law

holds that Rule 36 admissions trump conflicting evidence on summary judgment. See

Cook v. Allstate Ins. Co., 337 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1214 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (stating that failure to

challenge admissions until reply brief or oral argument on appeal is “too late”); see also

Kasuboski, 834 F.2d at 1350 (stating that “a party cannot attack issues of fact established

Case 2:04-cv-00802-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

in admissions by resisting a motion for summary judgment . . . . Rule 36 allows parties to

narrow the issues to be resolved at t rial by effectively identifying and eliminating those

matters on which the parties agree. This function would be lost if parties were permitted

to contest under Rule 56 a matter concluded under Rule 36.”)

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party, “show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a mat t er of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Jesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union,

24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). By failing to respond to the Requests for Admissions

Plaintiff has admitted that Defendants paid him for all overtime hours at the appropriate

statutory rate. There is, therefore, no factual dispute that would supp ort a Fair Labor

Standards Act violation and the Court will grant Defendant s’ motion for summary

judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. #31)

is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00802-DGC Document 40 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 3