Arrow Automatic Fire Protection, Inc. v. Wesleyan Corporation
11-14-00295-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- Arrow contracted with Wesleyan to install fire-sprinkler systems at Eastland and Brownwood; Eastland work was disputed and Brownwood system was never installed.
- Wesleyan served requests for admission seeking merit-preclusive admissions of breach and specific dollar damages; Arrow failed to timely respond so the requests were deemed admitted under Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c).
- Arrow’s original counsel (Busby) retained local counsel (Odom); Odom later filed responses after difficulty contacting Busby and after receiving an unsigned Rule 11 extension.
- Wesleyan moved for partial and no-evidence summary judgment relying in part on the deemed admissions; Arrow moved to withdraw the deemed admissions, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court granted Wesleyan’s summary-judgment motions; Arrow appealed arguing the court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal and erred in granting summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesleyan) | Defendant's Argument (Arrow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying withdrawal of deemed admissions | Deemed admissions should stand because counsel missed deadlines; Odom should have acted sooner | Withdrawal warranted for good cause: attorney miscommunication/neglect, no flagrant bad faith by Arrow, and no undue prejudice to Wesleyan | Reversed: withdrawal should have been allowed (good cause; no undue prejudice) |
| Whether summary judgment may be upheld without the deemed admissions | Summary judgment not based entirely on admissions; alternative evidence supports judgment | With admissions withdrawn, fact issues exist on breach and damages for both projects | Reversed: summary judgments vacated due to genuine fact issues precluding judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2011) (requests for admission are a tool, not a trap; due-process concerns for merits-preclusive admissions)
- Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) (good cause = accident or mistake; undue prejudice measured by delay or hampering preparation)
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions that preclude presentation of merits require considering whether to sanction party, attorney, or both)
- Time Warner, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 441 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (burden allocation when withdrawing merit-preclusive deemed admissions)