Driver v. Hernandez

E.D. Arkansas

Driver v. Hernandez

DecidedApril 7, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-00086

StatusUnknown

This text of Driver v. Hernandez (Driver v. Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Driver v. Hernandez, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

TIFFANY DRIVER PLAINTIFF VS. 3:19CV00086 JIM RUBEN HERNANDEZ DEFENDANT ORDER In the pending motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to deem admitted her Requests for Admission propounded on the Defendant on February 8, 2020. There has been no response from the Defendant. In fact, there has been no communication from the Defendant in months, even when directed to do so by the Court. Rule 36 provides that a party, within the permissible scope of discovery, may serve on any other party a written request to admit the truth of any matters relating to facts or the application of law to fact. See Quasius v. Schwan Food Co., 596 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2010). “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 addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 36(a)(3). “When a matter is admitted, it is “conclusively established’ for purposes of the action, “unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Quasius, 596 F.3d at 950. Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3), the Court deems admitted Plaintiffs Requests for Admission which are listed in, and attached to, this motion. (ECF No. 26, 26-1). Plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2020.

C M. NJ | United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

TIFFANY DRIVER PLAINTIFF VS. 3:19CV00086 JIM RUBEN HERNANDEZ DEFENDANT ORDER In the pending motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to deem admitted her Requests for Admission propounded on the Defendant on February 8, 2020. There has been no response from the Defendant. In fact, there has been no communication from the Defendant in months, even when directed to do so by the Court. Rule 36 provides that a party, within the permissible scope of discovery, may serve on any other party a written request to admit the truth of any matters relating to facts or the application of law to fact. See Quasius v. Schwan Food Co., 596 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2010). “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 addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 36(a)(3). “When a matter is admitted, it is “conclusively established’ for purposes of the action, “unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Quasius, 596 F.3d at 950. Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3), the Court deems admitted Plaintiffs Requests for Admission which are listed in, and attached to, this motion. (ECF No. 26, 26-1). Plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2020.

C M. NJ | United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Driver v. Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driver-v-hernandez-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack