358332
Mich. Ct. App.Aug 18, 2022Background
- Distinguished Development, Inc. contracted to pour a foundation/perform construction for Logu; plaintiff issued invoices totaling $48,406.42.
- Plaintiff served 13 requests to admit (Sept 8, 2020), including admissions that Logu received the benefits, owes the invoiced amount, is liable on the complaint, and suffered no damages from plaintiff’s work.
- Logu (pro se) did not respond; an attorney appeared the day responses were due and two subsequent attorneys likewise did not respond.
- With discovery closed and trial dates repeatedly adjourned due to COVID-19, plaintiff moved for summary disposition based on deemed admissions; Logu moved for leave to file late responses (styled below as motion to withdraw admissions).
- The trial court denied leave to file late responses, granted plaintiff’s summary-disposition motion based on the admitted matters, and entered judgment for plaintiff; Logu appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to file late responses to requests to admit | Distinguished argued the admissions were deemed and the court properly denied late responses given Logu’s lack of diligence and prejudice to plaintiff | Logu argued her failure to respond was inadvertent (pro se at the time), and the court should have applied the Janczyk balancing test to permit late responses | No abuse of discretion; even assuming Janczyk applied, the factors (prejudice to plaintiff, extended delay, lack of diligence after counsel appeared) justified denial |
| Whether summary disposition was improper because deemed admissions did not negate Logu’s asserted setoffs/defenses | Distinguished argued the specific admissions (receipt of benefits, owing the invoiced amount, liability, and no damages) conclusively resolved material facts and warranted summary disposition | Logu argued the admissions were irrelevant to her setoff claims that work was not performed or was defective | Affirmed: the judicial admissions were conclusive and precluded Logu’s setoff defenses; summary disposition was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 453 Mich 413 (1996) (judicial admissions under the court rule are conclusive and withdraw facts from issue)
- Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683 (1983) (articulates the balancing test for permitting withdrawal/late answers to requests to admit)
- Bailey v Schaaf, 293 Mich App 611 (2011) (standard of review and discretion for permitting late responses to requests to admit)
- Medbury v Walsh, 190 Mich App 554 (1991) (affirmed summary disposition based on deemed admissions after prolonged failure to respond)
- Frost v Cockerham, 164 Mich App 759 (1987) (upheld judgment based on admissions where requests to admit were not answered)
- Total Armored Car Serv, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 325 Mich App 403 (2018) (discusses plain-error review when issues are raised first on reconsideration)