Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01205/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01205-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GROUPON, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

(Re: Docket No. 69)

Plaintiffs William and Frances Mosley served Defendant Groupon, Inc. with several 

discovery requests, including requests for admission, on June 29, 2015.1 Groupon’s counsel lost 

track of these requests.2 But instead of owning up to the mistake, Groupon claimed that it had not 

consented to electronic service and refused to respond for months.

3

 With no other recourse 

available, Plaintiffs moved to compel responses.

4

 The court granted the motion and deemed 

admitted the matters in Plaintiffs’ requests for admission, as Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) requires.

5

Since then, Groupon has brought on new counsel,

6

and it now moves to withdraw the 

deemed admissions under Rule 36(b). “[A] client is ordinarily chargeable with his counsel’s 

 

1

See Docket No. 69-1, Exs. 3, 4.

2

See Docket No. 54 at 2; Docket No. 73-1 at ¶ 4.

3

See Docket No. 52 at 1-2.

4

See Docket No. 43.

5

See Docket No. 52 at 2.

6

See Docket No. 70.

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

negligent acts,”7and, in most contexts, “clients must be held accountable for the acts and 

omissions of their attorneys.”

8 Nevertheless, the court finds—with some reluctance—that Rule 36 

mandates more forgiveness than Groupon’s conduct otherwise might warrant. Groupon’s motion 

is GRANTED.

I.

As alleged in the complaint, on April 8, 2014, Plaintiffs purchased a $39 Groupon deal for 

duct cleaning services from Defendant American Duct Pros, Inc.

9

 ADP was to send “licensed, 

bonded, and insured technicians” to Plaintiffs’ home to “thoroughly examine” the heating system 

and “rid ducts and vents of dust and debris.”10 On May 4, a technician named Ben arrived at 

Plaintiffs’ home.11 Soon after setting up his cleaning equipment and examining their heating 

system, Ben told Plaintiffs that he had discovered asbestos in their ducts.12 He insisted that 

Plaintiffs needed to replace their ducts immediately and offered to do the job for $1,196.

13

 Ben 

assured Plaintiffs that he was licensed and qualified to abate asbestos, and they hired him to fix the 

problem.14 On May 7, Ben came back with an assistant to replace the ducts.15 Unfortunately for 

Plaintiffs, Ben turned out to be a fraud—not only had he lied about his licensure, but he also failed 

to follow basic safety protocols and ended up spreading asbestos throughout Plaintiffs’ house.16

 

7 Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002).

8

Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993).

9

See Docket No. 53 at ¶ 13.

10 Id.

11 See id. at ¶ 24.

12 See id. at ¶ 27.

13 See id. at ¶ 28.

14 See id. at ¶¶ 28, 30.

15 See id. at ¶ 32.

16 See id. at ¶¶ 29, 32-36.

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The situation did not improve from there. When Plaintiffs understandably refused to pay 

Ben, he berated Plaintiffs over the phone and threatened physical violence.

17

 Plaintiffs 

complained to Groupon; it promised to investigate but never followed up and continued listing 

deals for ADP’s services.18 Plaintiffs eventually had to evacuate their home for sixteen weeks—

which, to make matters worse, were the last sixteen weeks of Ms. Mosley’s pregnancy.19 The 

incident also caused about $40,000 in property damage and took a toll on Plaintiffs’ health.20

Plaintiffs filed this suit in state court in January 2015, and Groupon removed it to this court 

in March.21 On June 29, after Groupon’s counsel confirmed that he was “okay with electronic 

service,”22 Plaintiffs served the requests for admission at issue here by email.

23

 Independently, on 

August 14—after Groupon’s responses were due24—Judge Freeman dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims 

against Groupon, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint by November 11.25

On September 1, Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to the discovery requests it had 

served in June.26 The court granted the motion on November 3 and ordered Groupon to respond 

by November 17.27 Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on November 11.

28 Groupon served 

 

17 See id. at ¶¶ 37, 42-43.

18 See id. at ¶¶ 40, 44-45, 47.

19 See id. at ¶ 48.

20 See id. at ¶¶ 49-50.

21 See Docket No. 1.

22 Docket No. 43-1, Ex. H.

23 See Docket No. 69-1, Exs. 3, 4.

24 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (requiring responses within 30 days).

25 See Docket No. 37 at 2-3.

26 See Docket No. 43.

27 See Docket No. 52 at 2.

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

its responses on the November 17 deadline.29 

Because Plaintiffs had not received discovery responses when they filed their amended 

complaint, they relied heavily on the deemed admissions. Plaintiffs had asked Groupon to admit 

the truth of several damaging assertions, including that Groupon “did not investigate customer 

complaints,” that Groupon “intended to deceive the public” by falsely claiming that ADP 

technicians were licensed and that it “negligently posted at least one Groupon deal for ADP duct 

cleaning services.”

30

 These admissions appear throughout Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.31 

Groupon has moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and Judge Freeman will hear the motion 

on April 21, 2016.32

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1367. The undersigned was 

assigned discovery matters in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

III.

Rule 36(b) provides that “the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would 

promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would 

prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” The first 

prong “essentially asks if allowing the withdrawal will aid in the resolution of the case.”

33 This 

“is satisfied when upholding the admission would practically eliminate any presentation of the 

merits of the case,”

34 such as when a party is deemed to have admitted an ultimate legal issue.35

 

 

28 See Docket No. 53.

29 See Docket No. 73-1 at ¶ 8.

30 Docket No. 69-1, Ex. 4 at 3-4.

31 See Docket No. 53 at ¶¶ 1, 3, 14-18, 29, 39, 45-46.

32 See Docket No. 72.

33 Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir. 2002).

34 Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hadley v. United States, 45 

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Here, the admissions do bear directly on legal conclusions; several of them “simply concede 

essential elements” of Plaintiffs’ claims.

36

 Withdrawing them therefore would promote the 

presentation of the merits of the action.

The next step is assessing the prejudice to Plaintiffs. “The party relying on the deemed 

admission has the burden of proving prejudice.”37 “The prejudice contemplated by Rule 36(b) is 

not simply that the party who obtained the admission will now have to convince the factfinder of 

its truth.”38 Mere reliance on the admission in connection with a dispositive motion is not enough 

to constitute prejudice.39 Instead, the relevant concern is the “difficulty a party may face in 

proving its case at trial.”40 In general, the closer a case is to trial, the greater the prejudice.

41

Plaintiffs have not carried their burden. Trial is still nearly a year away, and Plaintiffs will 

have plenty of time to substantiate their claims. In fact, at the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs 

informed the court that a few of the documents they already have obtained from Groupon support

some of the allegations in their complaint. Withdrawal of the admissions might delay 

proceedings, but it will not deprive Plaintiffs of the opportunity to prove their case.

Although Rule 36(b) requires the court to consider the factors above, the Rule still grants 

the district court some discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw admissions.42 

 

F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)).

35 See, e.g., id. at 622; Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348; Boyd v. AutoZone, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00776, 

2012 WL 4466538, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2012).

36 Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622.

37 Id.

38 Id. (quoting Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348).

39 See id. at 624.

40 Id.

41 See id. at 622-24.

42 See id. at 625 (“[I]n deciding whether to exercise its discretion when the moving party has met 

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs focus much of their opposition on the unfairness of granting the motion in light of 

Groupon’s past misbehavior. As Plaintiffs point out, and as the court recognized in its previous 

order, Groupon’s former counsel did not cover themselves in glory.

43

 Essentially, Plaintiffs urge 

the court not to let Groupon off the hook simply because it has hired new lawyers.

The court sympathizes with Plaintiffs’ position. They are right that Groupon has “not 

show[n] good cause for [its] dilatory conduct,”

44 and Groupon’s failure already has delayed the 

case significantly. Regardless, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that concerns of equity merit only 

secondary consideration compared to the factors that Rule 36(b) identifies explicitly.

45

 Here, the 

two mandatory factors strongly favor granting the motion. In addition, another equitable 

consideration—“whether the moving party appears to have a strong case on the merits”

46—cuts 

the same way: Judge Freeman has expressed “serious doubts concerning Plaintiffs’ ability to 

demonstrate Groupon’s liability for Ben’s conduct.”

47

 All in all, withdrawal is appropriate.

Finally, Plaintiffs ask the court to award them the attorney’s fees they have incurred in 

opposing Groupon’s two motions to withdraw its admissions. Because Rule 36 makes no 

provision for fees, the court must interpret the request as a motion for sanctions under Rule 37. 

“[I]n this district, any motion for sanctions that is not separately filed in conformance with Civ. 

L.R. 7-2 is procedurally defective.”

48

 In this procedural posture, the court may not award fees.

 

the two-pronged test of Rule 36(b), the district court may consider other factors, including whether 

the moving party can show good cause for the delay and whether the moving party appears to have 

a strong case on the merits.”).

43 See Docket No. 52 at 1-2.

44 Conlon, 474 F.3d at 625.

45 See id.

46 Id.

47 Docket No. 37 at 3.

48 Quality Inv. Props. Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Elec., Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05376, 2011 WL 

2846555, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2011); see Civ. L.R. 7-8(a).

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 7