Persephany Allen v. Jackson Square Apartment Homes, LLC
2016-CA-00876-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Lease for Unit L-205 expired Feb. 28, 2014; occupants stayed and failed to pay rent; landlord Jackson Square obtained a money judgment and sought removal but had not completed removal when a fire on May 16, 2014 killed Catina Allen Staffney.
- Persephany Allen (daughter/next friend) sued Jackson Square (and Justin Davis) for wrongful death/premises liability, alleging faulty/inadequate smoke detectors, inadequate staff training, and lack of warnings.
- Jackson Square served written discovery including requests for admission in late Feb. 2016; Allen failed to respond within 30 days, so the requests were deemed admitted by operation of Rule 36.
- Jackson Square filed for summary judgment in April 2016 partly based on the deemed admissions; Allen moved to withdraw the admissions, claiming counsel believed a 10-day agreed extension covered them (and cited interoffice miscommunication).
- The circuit court permitted withdrawal of most admissions (finding counsel’s belief reasonable) but found Allen produced no evidence (no affidavits or Rule 56(f) showing) creating a genuine fact issue, and granted summary judgment for Jackson Square.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by allowing withdrawal of deemed admissions under M.R.C.P. 36(b) | Allen: withdrawal proper because counsel reasonably believed parties agreed to a 10-day extension covering all discovery, so Rule 36(b)’s remedial standard is satisfied | Jackson Square: no justifiable excuse for untimely responses; strict application of Rule 36 should bar withdrawal | Court: No abuse of discretion; withdrawal allowed because presentation of merits would be subserved and withdrawal would not prejudice Jackson Square |
| Whether summary judgment was improper after admissions were withdrawn | Allen: summary judgment premature; she could have shown fact issues with discovery and Rule 56(f) continuance | Jackson Square: Allen failed to produce affidavits or specific facts opposing summary judgment; mere pleadings/argument insufficient | Court: Affirmed summary judgment; Allen failed to set forth specific facts or file Rule 56(f) affidavit to create a genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Prime Rx, LLC v. McKendree, Inc., 917 So. 2d 791 (Miss. 2005) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So. 2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (Rule 36(b) withdrawal requires careful two-prong analysis)
- Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2001) (trial judge has discretion in treating matters as admitted)
- Carney v. IRS, 258 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2001) (even if Rule 36(b) factors met, court may still deny withdrawal)
- Sanford v. Dudley, 196 So. 3d 1106 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (withdrawing admissions permitted where party reasonably believed an extension existed)
- Karpinsky v. American National Insurance, 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary judgment review is de novo; view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Stuckey v. Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue to avoid summary judgment)
- One 1970 Mercury Cougar v. Tunica County, 115 So. 3d 792 (Miss. 2013) (arguments of counsel and pleadings alone insufficient to create fact issues)
- Franklin Collection Serv., Inc. v. Kyle, 955 So. 2d 284 (Miss. 2007) (parties cannot avoid summary judgment by speculating about possible future discovery)