242 So. 3d 619
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Apache paid fuel invoices to Talen and MES between Jan 2010 and Mar 2012; some invoices were duplicated (second invoice variants had a letter appended) and Apache's accounting did not detect duplicates.
- Apache sued to recover $105,229.24 in alleged duplicate payments and served 25 requests for admission about the total and individual invoice amounts.
- Defendants failed to timely respond to the requests for admission; Apache moved for summary judgment relying on deemed admissions under La. C.C.P. art. 1467.
- Defendants later filed answers and, 11 days before the summary judgment hearing, served responses and orally moved to withdraw deemed admissions; they also filed an affidavit admitting some overpayments but disputing amounts.
- The trial court granted Apache's summary judgment for $105,229.24 (plus costs and interest); defendants appealed arguing disputed material facts and improper treatment of admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were defendants' requests for admission statutorily deemed admitted? | Failure to respond timely = admissions; summary judgment appropriate. | Responses were later served and defendants sought withdrawal; merits disputed. | Deemed admitted; court did not abuse discretion in denying withdrawal. |
| Whether withdrawal of deemed admissions should have been allowed under La. C.C.P. art. 1468 | Withdrawal not shown; plaintiff would be prejudiced by late withdrawal. | Withdrawal would not prejudice Apache; parties were already aware of disputes from pleadings. | Withdrawal properly disallowed given dilatory conduct and prejudice to Apache. |
| Whether there remained genuine issues of material fact about amount owed | Deemed admissions established liability for $105,229.24; summary judgment proper. | Affidavit and late responses created factual disputes about amount and provenance of overpayments. | No genuine issue shown to defeat summary judgment; admissions controlled. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the merits | Article 2299 imposes duty to restore payments not owed; admitted amount entitles Apache to judgment. | Defendants contend records and acquisition history complicated amounts owed. | Summary judgment affirmed; statutory law and deemed admissions support recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Prestage v. Clark, 723 So.2d 1086 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1998) (trial court discretion on withdrawal of admissions)
- LeBlanc v. Aysenne, 921 So.2d 85 (La. 2006) (interlocutory discovery rulings may be modified before final judgment)
- Sanders v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., 867 So.2d 771 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (discovery rulings and interlocutory nature noted)
- Guillory v. Christus Health Central Louisiana, 219 So.3d 1115 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2017) (no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal where plaintiff would be prejudiced)
- Hall v. Our Lady of the Lake R.M.C., 968 So.2d 179 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (application of La. C.C.P. art. 1468 withdrawal standard)
- Bossier Parish Sch. Bd. v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 161 So.3d 1007 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2015) (recovery required when a party received payment not owed under La. C.C. art. 2299)