Monolith Companies, LLC v. Hunter Douglas Hospitality, Inc.
333 Ga. App. 898
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Hunter Douglas sued Monolith on a commercial account alleging $23,860.13 owed; complaint filed May 6, 2013.
- Monolith answered around July 13, 2013. Six months later (Jan. 21, 2014) Hunter Douglas served requests for admission, interrogatories, and production.
- Monolith did not serve any responses or objections to the requests for admission within 30 days (and did not invoke Rule 5.1 remedies).
- Hunter Douglas moved for summary judgment based on Monolith’s failure to respond to requests for admission that asked Monolith to admit indebtedness for the amount in the complaint.
- The trial court entered judgment for Hunter Douglas for principal, accrued interest, costs, and post-judgment interest; Monolith appealed arguing the requests were untimely under Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1 and the court improperly compelled discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment based on deemed admissions was proper when defendant failed to respond to requests for admission | Requests for admission were served and, because Monolith failed to respond, the requests were deemed admitted, removing any genuine issue of material fact | Requests served after the 6-month discovery window under USC R. 5.1 were untimely; the court could not require responses or rely on them | Held for plaintiff: admissions arose by operation of law under OCGA § 9-11-36(a)(2); trial court properly gave effect to them and granted summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court’s judgment amounted to compelling discovery in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1 | Hunter Douglas did not seek to compel discovery; it sought judgment based on admissions deemed admitted by law | Monolith contends the court’s enforcement of the requests circumvented Rule 5.1’s time limits | Held for plaintiff: court did not compel discovery; Rule 5.1 bars compulsory process but does not prevent admissions arising by operation of law from being enforced |
| Whether Monolith could avoid the admissions without motion to withdraw or other relief | Plaintiff argued no motion to withdraw or motion under OCGA § 9-11-36(b) was filed, so admissions were conclusive | Defendant argued it could assert untimeliness and sought to withdraw admissions (record did not show any motion) | Held for plaintiff: because Monolith did not move to withdraw or otherwise object, the trial court lacked authority to disregard admissions; withdrawal requires motion and showing under OCGA § 9-11-36(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Nemdegelt, Inc., 302 Ga. App. 767 (de novo review standard on summary judgment)
- Brougham Casket & Vault Co. v. DeLoach, 323 Ga. App. 701 (failure to respond to requests for admission results in proper summary judgment in commercial-account case)
- Vis v. Harris, 329 Ga. App. 129 (failure to move to withdraw admissions forecloses relief under OCGA § 9-11-36(b))
- G. H. Bass & Co. v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 268 Ga. 327 (party’s failure to use remedies under OCGA § 9-11-36 leads to admissions standing)
- Stephens v. Alan V. Mock Constr. Co., 302 Ga. App. 280 (summary judgment appropriate where party failed to respond to requests for admission)
- Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga. App. 256 (standard for permitting withdrawal/amendment of admissions under OCGA § 9-11-36(b))