J. S76010/14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

TAPCO EUROPE LIMITED :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

RED SQUARE CORPORATION, 

NOMAD BRANDS, INC., AND 

MICHAEL KWADRAT

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: RED SQUARE 

CORPORATION,

:

: No. 497 WDA 2014

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Order Entered March 20, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No. G.D. No. 13-21308

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND OLSON, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 17, 2015

Red Square Corporation appeals from the order of March 20, 2014, 

granting plaintiff/appellee, Tapco Europe Limited’s (“Tapco”) motion for 

judgment on admissions and denying Red Square’s motion to withdraw 

admissions. We affirm.1

Tapco sells building materials to Red Square. According to the 

complaint, Red Square accepted shipment of goods in March and April 2013 

 

1 On March 21, 2014, Tapco discontinued the case as to defendants 

Nomad Brands, Inc. and Michael Kwadrat. Therefore, the order entering 

judgment upon admissions against Red Square became a final order 

disposing of all claims and parties and is appealable. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).
J. S76010/14

- 2 -

but failed to pay the invoices, totaling $155,011. Tapco filed a complaint on 

November 7, 2013, and served Red Square and the other named defendants 

with its first request for admissions on November 13, 2013. Red Square 

failed to respond, and on March 9, 2014, Tapco filed a motion to enter 

judgment upon admissions. Following a hearing, the Honorable Judith L.A. 

Friedman granted the motion on March 20, 2014. Red Square filed a motion 

for reconsideration on March 25, 2014, and notice of appeal on March 28, 

2014. Attached to Red Square’s motion for reconsideration were its 

proposed responses to Tapco’s request for admissions. Following a hearing 

on April 22, 2014, Red Square’s motion for reconsideration was denied. 

Red Square complied with Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the 

trial court has filed an opinion.

Red Square has raised the following issue for this court’s review:

I. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of 

law or abused its discretion by denying 

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Admissions 

under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4014(d)[?]

Red Square’s brief at 4.

Rule 4014 governs requests for admissions. It 

permits a party to serve upon another party a 

written request for the admission of the truth of 

certain matters relating to statements or opinions of 

fact or the application of the law to fact. 

Pa.R.C.P. 4014(a). This includes questions regarding 

the execution, correctness, genuineness, 

authenticity, signing, delivery, mailing, or receipt of 

any document described in the request for 

admissions. Id. “The purpose of this discovery tool 

is to clarify and simplify the issues raised in prior 
J. S76010/14

- 3 -

pleadings in order to expedite the litigation process.” 

Christian v. Pennsylvania Fin. Responsibility 

Assigned Claims Plan, 454 Pa.Super. 512, 686 

A.2d 1, 5 (1996) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 

548 Pa. 678, 699 A.2d 733 (1997). Unless the party 

responds to the request within 30 days (45 days for 

a defendant), the matter is deemed admitted. 

Pa.R.C.P. 4014(b). The trial court may extend or 

shorten the timeframe in which the responding party 

has to answer the request. Id.

Estate of Borst v. Edward Stover Sr. Testamentary Trust, 30 A.3d 

1207, 1210 (Pa.Super. 2011).

Rule 4014 provides, in its entirety, as follows:

Rule 4014. Request for Admission

(a) A party may serve upon any other party a 

written request for the admission, for purposes 

of the pending action only, of the truth of any 

matters within the scope of Rules 4003.1 

through 4003.5 inclusive set forth in the 

request that relate to statements or opinions of 

fact or of the application of law to fact, 

including the genuineness, authenticity, 

correctness, execution, signing, delivery, 

mailing or receipt of any document described 

in the request. Copies of documents shall be 

served with the request unless they have been 

or are otherwise furnished or available for 

inspection and copying in the county. The 

request may, without leave of court, be served 

upon the plaintiff after commencement of the 

action and upon any other party with or after 

service of the original process upon that party.

Note: This Subdivision has been amended so 

that its content will conform more closely to 

the content of the first sentence of 

F.R.Civ.P. 36(a). 
J. S76010/14

- 4 -

(b) Each matter of which an admission is 

requested shall be separately set forth. The 

matter is admitted unless, within thirty days 

after service of the request, or within such 

shorter or longer time as the court may allow, 

the party to whom the request is directed 

serves upon the party requesting the 

admission an answer verified by the party or 

an objection, signed by the party or by the 

party’s attorney; but, unless the court shortens 

the time, a defendant shall not be required to 

serve answers or objections before the 

expiration of forty-five days after service of the 

original process upon him or her. If objection 

is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. 

The answer shall admit or deny the matter or 

set forth in detail the reasons why the 

answering party cannot truthfully do so. A 

denial shall fairly meet the substance of the 

requested admission, and when good faith 

requires that a party qualify the answer or 

deny only a part of the matter of which an 

admission is requested, the party shall specify 

so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the 

remainder. An answering party may not give 

lack of information or knowledge as a reason 

for failure to admit or deny unless the 

answering party states that he or she has 

made reasonable inquiry and that the 

information known or readily obtainable by him 

or her is insufficient to enable him or her to 

admit or deny. A party who considers that a 

matter of which an admission has been 

requested presents a genuine issue for trial 

may not, on that ground alone, object to the 

request. That party may, subject to the 

provisions of Rule 4019(d), deny the matter or 

set forth reasons why he or she cannot admit 

or deny it.

Note: The requirements of an answer are 

governed by this rule and not by Rule 1029(b).
J. S76010/14

- 5 -

(c) The party who has requested the admission 

may move to determine the sufficiency of the 

answer or objection. Unless the court 

determines that an objection is justified, it 

shall order that an answer be served. If the 

court determines that an answer does not 

comply with the requirements of this rule, it 

may order either that the matter is admitted or 

that an amended answer be served. The court 

may, in lieu of these orders, determine that 

final disposition of the request be made at a 

pre-trial conference or at a designated time 

prior to trial.

(d) Any matter admitted under this rule is 

conclusively established unless the court on 

motion permits withdrawal or amendment of 

the admission. Subject to the provisions of 

Rule 212.3 governing pre-trial conferences, the 

court may permit withdrawal or amendment 

when the presentation of the merits of the 

action will be subserved thereby and the party 

who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the 

court that withdrawal or amendment will 

prejudice him or her in maintaining the action 

or defense on the merits. Any admission by a 

party under this rule is for the purpose of the 

pending action only and is not an admission by 

the party for any other purpose nor may it be 

used against the party in any other 

proceeding.

Pa.R.C.P., Rule 4014, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

A party on whom requests for admissions of fact are 

served runs the risk that the facts as set forth in the 

request for admissions will be conclusively binding 

on him if he chooses not to file an answer to the 

request for admissions or file objections to the 

request.

Innovate, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 418 A.2d 720, 723 

(Pa.Super. 1980). “The rule clearly states that the party receiving the 
J. S76010/14

- 6 -

request must respond by answering or objecting.” Richard T. Byrnes Co., 

Inc. v. Buss Automation, Inc., 609 A.2d 1360, 1367 (Pa.Super. 1992).

Withdrawal of admissions should be granted where 

upholding the admission would practically eliminate 

any presentation of the merits of the case; where 

withdrawal would prevent manifest injustice; and 

where the party who obtained the admissions failed 

to prove that withdrawal would result in prejudice to 

that party. Westmoreland v. Triumph 

Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192 (D.Conn.1976). 

The test of prejudice turns on whether a party 

opposing the withdrawal is rendered less able to 

obtain the evidence required to prove the matters 

which had been admitted. Teleprompter of Erie, 

Inc. v. City of Erie, 567 F.Supp. 1277 

(W.D.Pa.1983); Rabil v. Swafford, 128 F.R.D. 1 

(D.D.C.1989).

Dwight v. Girard Medical Center, 623 A.2d 913, 916 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) 

(footnote omitted).

Furthermore, if the subject matter of the admissions 

is broad and far-reaching, a court should permit 

withdrawal in the absence of bad faith or substantial 

prejudice. Teleprompter of Erie, Inc.; Szatanek 

v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 109 F.R.D. 37 

(W.D.N.Y.1985). Moreover, requests for admissions 

must call for matters of fact rather than legal 

opinions and conclusions. California v. The Jules 

Fribourg, 19 F.R.D. 432 (N.D.Cal.1955). Since 

conclusions of law are not within the permissible 

scope of requests for admissions under Rule 4014, 

those statements in the requests for admissions 

which constitute conclusions of law are not properly 

before the court. Commonwealth v. Diamond 

Shamrock Chemical Co., 38 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 

89, 391 A.2d 1333 (1978).

Id.
J. S76010/14

- 7 -

The record reflects that Red Square was properly served with both the 

complaint and the request for admissions, yet failed to file an answer or 

objections as required by the rule. Under Rule 4014(b), Red Square had 

45 days to respond. Tapco waited approximately four months before filing 

its motion to enter judgment upon admissions.

It is clear from Michael Kwadrat’s (“Kwadrat”) deposition that he was 

served with the request for admissions but failed to turn it over to his 

attorney. (Kwadrat deposition, 2/11/14 at 48-49, 51-52.) Kwadrat testified 

that he travels frequently and the request for admissions likely sat unopened 

in his office along with other mail. (Id. at 17, 51.)2 Kwadrat testified to 

receiving a “ream of documents.” (Id. at 41.) As the trial court states, “The 

deposition of Mr. Kwadrat made it clear that he received the Request for 

Admissions and sat on it.” (Trial court opinion, 8/6/14 at 2.) While 

Judge Friedman did not find that Kwadrat acted in bad faith, he was at least 

negligent in failing to forward the documents to counsel:

No. Bad faith doesn’t matter. What I’m saying is 

your client did, in fact, by his own admission, I didn’t 

say this, at his deposition. He says he got a 

document. There was one thing sent to him. So 

whatever he did with it, I don’t know. And you don’t 

know. Your client maybe forgot what he did with it. 

But he got it. Okay. It was received. And the rule 

is pretty clear.

 

2 Kwadrat is the president, as well as the sole officer and shareholder, of 

Red Square. (Id. at 6.) Kwadrat is also the sole shareholder, officer, and 

director of Nomad Brands, Inc. (Id. at 46.)
J. S76010/14

- 8 -

Notes of testimony, 4/22/14 at 30.

More importantly, when Red Square finally submitted proposed 

responses to Tapco’s request for admissions, attached to its motion for 

reconsideration, it admitted that the goods identified on the invoices were 

delivered, received, and accepted. Red Square also admitted in part that 

the invoices remained unpaid in the amounts stated, responding with regard 

to each invoice: “It is admitted that there is an unpaid invoice. Defendants 

deny any obligation to pay said invoice.”

In response to requests 4 and 5, which state, “Kindly admit that you 

never disputed your obligation to pay the attached invoices,” and “Kindly 

admit that you never disputed the accuracy of the attached invoices,” 

Red Square responds:

Defendant Red Square has been in ongoing 

discussions with Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s 

malfeasance, breach of contract and damage done to 

Defendant Red Square[’s] business. Said breach and 

repudiation prior to the shipped orders and 

subsequent dispute with Plaintiff’s counsel as to 

Defendant Red Square’s obligation as well as 

Plaintiff’s obligation have been the source of dispute 

since early 2013.

Red Square does not elaborate or explain why, if there was an anticipatory 

breach, it accepted the goods.

Rule 4014(b) states,

The answer shall admit or deny the matter or set 

forth in detail the reasons why the answering party 

cannot truthfully do so. A denial shall fairly meet the

substance of the requested admission, and when 
J. S76010/14

- 9 -

good faith requires that a party qualify the answer or 

deny only a part of the matter of which an admission 

is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as 

is true and qualify or deny the remainder.

Red Square’s general, non-specific denial of any obligation to pay the 

invoices is insufficient. It not only lacks detail, but Red Square admits that 

(1) the ordered goods were delivered, received, and accepted; and (2) the 

invoices remain unpaid in the amounts stated in the complaint. Therefore, 

even if the trial court were to permit Red Square’s proposed responses, they 

are mostly admissions. Red Square admits receiving and accepting all goods 

delivered by Tapco, as stated on the invoices. Furthermore, as the trial 

court remarks, “Red Square also implicitly admits the balances due on the 

various invoices by failing to state why it has no obligation to pay each 

invoice. These general denials violate Rule 4014(b) which states in pertinent 

part ‘A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission.’” 

(Trial court opinion, 8/6/14 at 2-3 (emphasis in original).)

Additionally, we agree with the trial court that Red Square’s 

unsupported and vague allegations of malfeasance and breach of contract 

are inadequate to “meet the substance” of the requested admissions. (Id.

at 3.) Red Square does not specify how Tapco was in breach of contract, or 

how its alleged malfeasance caused damage to Red Square’s business. 

Notably, Red Square alleged there had been an ongoing dispute since early 

2013, yet it was still unable to articulate the nature of the dispute more than 

a year later. As the trial court observes,
J. S76010/14

- 10 -

These virtually identical responses leave the neutral 

reader without a clue as to what Red Square is 

talking about. The alleged malfeasance is not 

specified; the alleged breach by Plaintiff is not 

specified; the alleged damage to Red Square’s 

business is not specified; the alleged repudiation is 

not only unspecified, it appears out of thin air.

Id.

Red Square was properly served with Tapco’s request for admissions, 

yet “sat on it” for over four months. Red Square did not submit any 

proposed responses to Tapco’s request until March 25, 2014, when it filed a 

motion for reconsideration of the order entering judgment. Even then, its 

proposed responses are mostly either admissions or vague, general denials 

and unspecified allegations. We agree with the trial court that Tapco has 

been substantially prejudiced by Red Square’s dilatory conduct. (Id. at 

3-4.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit 

Red Square to withdraw its admissions and file an answer.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/17/2015