Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01304/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01304-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

Alan Singer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Harvey Duro, Sr., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1304-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #51. Defendants have

responded, counter-moved for summary judgment, and moved for relief from failure to make

timely responses to request for admissions. Dkt. #62. Plaintiff’s motion is fully briefed.

Dkt. ## 62, 64. Defendants have failed to reply in support of their motion for relief from

failure to make timely responses, and the time for doing so has passed. Defendants have not

yet filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, but that reply is not

necessary in light of this order. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants

motion for relief from their failure to make timely responses to request for admissions and

deny both motions for summary judgment without prejudice. 

I. Background.

Although the parties dispute many of the relevant facts, this is a general summary:

Desert Mobilehome Park, Inc. was formed by Mike Zinn and Defendants Harvey Duro, Sr.

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 70 Filed 04/22/09 Page 1 of 5
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 -

and Josefino David. On May 21, 2007, Mike Zinn and Defendant Desert Mobilehome Park,

Inc. entered into a written contract where Zinn agreed to sell his interest in the corporation

and Desert Mobilehome Park agreed to pay $300,000. Desert Mobilehome Park was to make

a down payment and then pay $8,000 per month by the 10th of each month. Desert

Mobilehome Park breached the agreement on April 10, 2008. On April 30, 2008, Zinn

assigned his rights under the contract to Plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, a new corporation was

formed – Duroville Renaissance Corporation – and the assets from Desert Mobilehome Park

were transferred to the new corporation. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging breach of

contract, fraud, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seeking

both compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff seeks to pierce the corporate veil and

hold Defendants Duro and David personally liable. 

II. Motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted.

On November 26, 2008, Plaintiff sent requests for admissions to Defendants’ attorney,

J. Scott Zundel. Dkt. ## 62, 63. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3) states that 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 to the matter.”

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 36(a)(3). Zundel e-mailed the responses to Plaintiff on January 8, 2009,

well after the 30-day deadline. Pursuant to Rule 36, Plaintiff’s requests for admissions were

therefore deemed admitted. Only after Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on

February 17, 2009, relying upon those admissions, did Defendants file a motion pursuant to

Rule 36(b) seeking to withdraw the admissions. Dkt. #62 at 13. The motion was filed on

March 20, 2009, almost three months after the requests for admissions were deemed admitted

by Defendants’ failure to timely respond. 

The Ninth Circuit holds that a district court has discretion to grant relief from an

admission under Rule 36(b) only when: (1) “it would promote the presentation of the merits

of the action” and (2) “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.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Hadley v.

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 70 Filed 04/22/09 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 Defendants argue that even if all the admissions are upheld, Plaintiff has still failed

to prove (1) that individual defendants signed anything in their individual capacity, (2) the

necessary elements to pierce the corporate veil, and (3) sufficient evidence of fraud. These

assertions are directly contradicted by Plaintiff’s statement of facts, paragraphs 6, 7, 11, 14,

and 27. Dkt. #56. 

- 3 -

United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds that upholding the

admissions would effectively eliminate consideration of the merits of the case. See Hadley

v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995).1

 The requests for admissions are

extensive. By failing to respond to the requests, Defendants admitted the relevant facts of

each claim and the liability of each Defendant on each claim. 

The second prong of the test is also satisfied. The prejudice inquiry must focus on the

prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623. The party

relying on the deemed admission has the burden of proving prejudice. Id. at 622. Reliance

on a deemed admission in preparing a summary judgment motion does not constitute

prejudice, nor does a lack of discovery where a court may reopen the discovery period. Id.

at 624. In spite of Plaintiff’s assertion that trial is set for September of 2009, in actuality a

trial date has not been set in this case. Dkt. #63 at 12. Plaintiff argues that he would be

prejudiced because he has relied on the admissions for several months, because the accuracy

of adjudication would be hindered by allowing the withdrawal of admissions, and because

Mr. Zinn’s health is failing. Id. at 12-14. None of these consideration significantly prejudice

Plaintiff with regard to trial. Although Plaintiff has relied on the admissions for several

months and in preparing his motion for summary judgment, this is not sufficient to show that

he would be prejudiced at trial. The Court cannot agree with Plaintiff’s assertion that

allowing requests for admissions to be deemed admitted would bolster the accuracy of

adjudication. Common sense dictates that allowing Defendants to present their version of

the facts would better ensure the accuracy of adjudication. Finally, Plaintiff’s assertion that

Mr. Zinn’s health is failing is not sufficient to show prejudice at trial. Plaintiff has the

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 70 Filed 04/22/09 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

opportunity to preserve the information Mr. Zinn would testify to in the event he is not able

to testify at trial. The Court will grant Defendants’ request to withdraw the admissions. 

The Court notes, nonetheless, that Mr. Zundel repeatedly has failed to act in a timely

manner in this case. In addition to the untimely responses to the requests for admissions, Mr.

Zundel filed Defendants’ answer and Defendants’ response to the motion for summary

judgment late. He waited until after Plaintiff had filed a motion for summary judgment

before seeking to withdraw the admissions. He has also been slow and sometimes

unresponsive in his discovery obligations. See Dkt. #41. Such recalcitrance should not go

unsanctioned. The Court will entertain a motion for monetary sanctions by Plaintiff against

Mr. Zundel personally for the time Plaintiff invested in drafting the motion for summary

judgment that must now be re-drafted after additional discovery. Plaintiff’s motion shall not

exceed five pages and shall be filed with the Court on or before May 8, 2009. Mr. Zundel

shall respond by May 15, 2009. In addition, the Court will schedule a telephone conference

call on April 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery.

III. Motions for summary judgment.

A. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment relies entirely on the requests for admission

deemed admitted. Dkt. ## 53, 56. Because the Court will allow Defendants’ to withdraw

these admissions, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. The Court will

set a deadline for Plaintiff to file a new motion for summary judgment at the telephone

conference call on April 30, 2009. 

B. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will also be denied without prejudice.

Dkt. #62. Plaintiff has relied on Defendants’ admissions in determining what discovery to

pursue and the discovery period must now be re-opened to allow Plaintiff to conduct

additional discovery. Plaintiff should have the opportunity to respond to Defendants’ motion

after further discovery has been conducted. Defendants’ motion will be denied without

prejudice. 

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 70 Filed 04/22/09 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion for relief from failure to timely file responses to request

for admissions (Dkt. #63) is granted.

2. If Plaintiff wishes to file a motion for sanction personally against Mr. Zundel

for the reasons stated in this order, the motion must not exceed five pages and

must be filed by May 8, 2009. Mr. Zundel shall respond by May 15, 2009.

No reply shall be filed.

3. The Court has scheduled a telephone conference call on April 30, 2009 at

2:30 p.m. to discuss reopening the discovery period. The parties shall jointly

place a call to the Court at that time.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #51) and Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment (Dkt. #62) are denied without prejudice.

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 70 Filed 04/22/09 Page 5 of 5