Mejia v. Cathedral Lane LLC, Civil Action No. 2019-2492

Plaintiffs sued Cathedral Lane, Gjergji Sinoimeri, and others under the FLSA, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, and the D.C. Wage Payment Law, alleging unpaid wages and that Sinoimeri was an employer/alter ego of Cathedral Lane.
Discovery closed Oct. 18, 2021; Plaintiffs served 146 RFAs on Sinoimeri on Oct. 25, 2021; answers were due within 30 days (Nov. 24, 2021).
Sinoimeri served responses on Dec. 20, 2021 (untimely), so under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 the RFAs were deemed admitted; he later moved to amend/withdraw those admissions under Rule 36(b).
The RFAs included admissions on core issues: that plaintiffs were not paid for hours worked, Sinoimeri’s control over accounts, hiring/accounting authority, payments from corporate accounts to personal obligations, lack of corporate formalities, and capitalization.
The magistrate applied Rule 36(b)’s two-factor test (promote presentation of the merits; no prejudice to requesting party), found the deemed admissions both material and contested, found no cognizable prejudice, and held Rule 36(b) did not require excusable neglect; the motion to amend was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deemed admissions may be withdrawn/amended under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)	RFAs were automatically admitted by operation of Rule 36; late responses should be rejected	Rule 36(b) permits withdrawal/amendment where it will promote presentation of the merits and not prejudice the requesting party	Granted — Rule 36(b) governs and permits withdrawal here
Whether withdrawal would promote presentation of the merits	Allowing withdrawal undermines plaintiffs’ proof and should not be allowed	Many admissions are material and contested (e.g., unpaid wages, control, alter-ego); withdrawing aids a merits-based resolution	Promotes presentation — admissions are material and contested; first prong met
Whether plaintiffs would be prejudiced by withdrawal	Granting will delay resolution and force expanded discovery and proof burdens	Typical litigation burdens are not cognizable prejudice; no evidence of lost witnesses or inaccessible evidence	No cognizable prejudice shown; second prong met
Whether movant must show excusable neglect/good faith for late responses	Counsel’s thin excuses (illness/holidays) are insufficient; motion should be denied	Rule 36(b) does not require a showing of excusable neglect; focus is on effect and prejudice	Excusable neglect not required; lack of detail in excuse not dispositive

Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 231 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 2000) (requests for admission are deemed admitted by operation of law if not timely answered)
Baker v. Potter, 212 F.R.D. 8 (D.D.C. 2002) (absent timely response or objection, matters in RFAs are automatically admitted)
Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1995) (discusses when upholding admissions would preclude presentation of merits)
Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (interpreting Rule 36(b)’s first prong in context of merits presentation)
Brook Village N. Assocs. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 686 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1982) (prejudice under Rule 36(b) concerns difficulty proving case caused by withdrawal)
FDIC v. Prusia, 18 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 1994) (prejudice inquiry focuses on effect on litigation, not ordinary litigation burdens)
Wilson v. Hunam Inn, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) (economic-reality factors for FLSA employer status)
Estate of Raleigh v. Mitchell, 947 A.2d 464 (D.C. 2008) (factors relevant to piercing corporate veil)