Emerita Medina, Kianna Paz, and Remmy Matute v. Gloria Raven, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3595

Plaintiffs sued Raven for injuries from a July 4, 2011 car collision; plaintiffs changed counsel multiple times during the case.
Raven served requests for admissions in February 2014 alleging no liability, and alleged plaintiffs failed to timely respond; plaintiffs contend they responded in April 2014 and again in July 2014 with tracking records and email confirmations.
Raven moved for final summary judgment based solely on three deemed admissions (no fault, no injury, driver failed to lookout); trial court granted summary judgment on July 24, 2014.
Plaintiffs filed a verified motion for new trial and to set aside the deemed admissions, arguing responses had been served and, alternatively, that good cause existed to withdraw deemed admissions and that withdrawal would not prejudice Raven.
Trial court denied the new trial and motion to undeem; plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the court should have allowed withdrawal of the merits-preclusive deemed admissions because Raven did not show flagrant bad faith or callous disregard and plaintiffs had answered before the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment based solely on deemed admissions was error	Plaintiffs said they timely responded (evidence of mailing/receipt) and thus genuine fact issues existed	Raven said RFAs were properly served and responses were untimely, so deemed admissions justified summary judgment	Reversed — summary judgment based solely on deemed admissions was improper where responses existed and no evidence of flagrant bad faith by plaintiffs
Whether trial court erred denying motion to set aside deemed admissions / new trial	Motion showed good cause, no undue prejudice, and deprivation of trial on merits; plaintiffs offered to mitigate any inconvenience	Raven argued plaintiffs offered no affidavits/verification proving good cause and waived the issue by waiting	Reversed — court abused discretion by denying; where admissions are merits-preclusive, opposing party must show flagrant bad faith or callous disregard to defeat withdrawal; Raven failed to do so
Whether plaintiffs timely responded based on receipt date	Plaintiffs relied on tracking records and communications showing April 2014 receipt, making responses timely	Raven relied on service rules (mail date + 3 days) and argued service was proper on the record address	Court did not decide this issue because reversal on the undeem/new-trial ground made resolution unnecessary

Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2002) (standards for withdrawing deemed admissions and allowing late summary-judgment response are the same)
Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) (due-process bars merits-preclusive sanctions absent flagrant bad faith or callous disregard)
Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2011) (reversal of summary judgment based solely on near-timely answered RFAs; withdrawals favored when no bad faith)
Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. 1996) (requests for admissions not intended to eliminate a party’s cause of action or defenses)
Cleveland v. Taylor, 397 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (post-judgment attempt to undeem admissions may be waived when party had notice and repeatedly failed to respond)
Time Warner, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 441 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (Wheeler due-process principle applies when admissions are used to preclude presentation of the merits)