Decker v. Zonic

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Randy Scott Decker, et al., No. CV-23-08077-PCT-DWL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Omer Zonic, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the 16 alternative, motion to dismiss. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiffs did not respond. For the following 17 reasons, the motion is granted. 18 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 19 In February 2023, Plaintiffs—who were then represented by counsel—filed a 20 complaint in Mohave County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-3.) The complaint asserts a 21 negligence claim against Defendants arising from a car accident that occurred in February 22 2021. (Id.) 23 In April 2023, this action was removed to federal court based on diversity 24 jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) 25 In October 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which the Court 26 granted. (Docs. 16, 21.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs are now proceeding pro se. 27 On January 11, 2024, Plaintiffs’ depositions were scheduled to take place. (Doc. 28 30-1 at 13-18.) However, Plaintiffs did not appear. (Id.) 1 On February 21, 2024, Defendants served requests for admission (“RFAs”) on 2 Plaintiffs. (Doc. 26.) Among other things, Defendants asked each Plaintiff to admit that 3 (1) Defendants were not negligent in the underlying accident; and (2) the underlying 4 accident did not cause Plaintiff to suffer any injury. (Doc. 30-1 at 3, 8.) 5 Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3), Plaintiffs’ responses to the RFAs were due within 30 days 6 of when the RFAs were served, i.e., by March 22, 2024. Plaintiffs did not respond by that 7 deadline and indeed have never responded. (Doc. 30 at 1.) 8 On April 18, 2024, Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment or, 9 in the alternative, motion to dismiss. (Doc. 30.) The deadline to respond has now expired 10 and Plaintiffs did not file a response. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Defendants’ first argument is that they are entitled to summary judgment based on 13 Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the RFAs, because Plaintiffs have effectively “admitted that 14 Defendants were not negligent and did not cause their damages.” (Doc. 30 at 2.) The Court 15 agrees that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this basis. 16 Rule 36(a)(3) provides in relevant part that “[a] matter is admitted unless, within 30 17 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting 18 party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its 19 attorney.” “Rule 36 is self-executing, meaning that a party admits a matter by failing to 20 serve a response to the request within thirty days; the opposing party does not have to file 21 a motion to deem the matter admitted.” In re Pacific Thomas Corp., 715 F. App’x 778, 22 779 (9th Cir. 2018). Thus, by not responding to Defendants’ RFAs, Plaintiffs have 23 admitted that Defendants were not negligent and that the underlying accident did not cause 24 Plaintiffs to suffer any injury. 25 Under Rule 36(b), “[a] matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established 26 unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Here, 27 Plaintiffs have not moved to withdraw their admissions. Thus, the absence of negligence 28 and causation in this case are conclusively established. Seminiano v. Xyris Enterprise, Inc., 1|| 602 F. App’x 682, 683 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing other cases for the proposition that a “deemed || admission can only be withdrawn or amended by motion in accordance with Rule 36(b)”). It follows that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence 4|| claim. 5 Given this determination, it is unnecessary to address Defendants’ alternative 6 || request for dismissal under Rule 41(b), although the Court notes that this request also appears to be meritorious. 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the || alternative, motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment || accordingly and terminate this action. 12 Dated this 24th day of May, 2024. 13 14 Lom ee” 15 f □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-