Rainer v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
119 So. 3d 398
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rainer, former Wal‑Mart personnel manager, sued Wal‑Mart for alleged wrongful arrest and embezzlement charges.
- Wal‑Mart's discovery requests, including requests for admissions, were served in 2011 after termination and criminal charge were dismissed.
- Rainer's counsel did not respond within 30 days; Wal‑Mart sent a good‑faith extension letter but no responses were provided.
- Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment asserting the admissions were conclusively established and no genuine issues remained.
- Rainer sought to withdraw the deemed admissions, arguing failure to respond stemmed from not receiving the requests; the court denied the withdrawal.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the deemed admissions resolved liability and related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper effect of deemed admissions | Rainer failed to respond; admissions were improper to deem dispositive. | Rule 36 admissions were properly deemed; no genuine issues remain. | Deemed admissions proper; no genuine issues on liability. |
| Withdrawal of deemed admissions | Counsel not receiving requests excuses untimely responses; withdrawal should be allowed. | Delay after good‑faith letter and lack of justification justify denial of withdrawal. | Trial court's denial of withdrawal within discretion; affirmed. |
| Summary judgment standard and defamation claim viability | There are disputed facts preventing summary judgment on defamation. | Deemed admissions show no false statements and privileges; no defamation liability. | Summary judgment proper for defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langley v. Miles, 956 So.2d 970 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (counsel's failure to respond after extension denied withdrawal of admissions)
- Triangle Constr. Co. v. Foshee Constr. Co., 976 So.2d 978 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (discretion in allowing withdrawal from admissions)
- Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508 (Miss. 2001) (trial court's discretion in Rule 36 matters)
- Speed v. Scott, 787 So.2d 626 (Miss. 2001) (definition of admissible evidence and standard for summary judgment)
- Perkins v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 46 So.3d 839 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (malicious prosecution elements)
- Borne v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 12 So.3d 565 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for summary judgment and burden of proof)
- J.R. ex rel. R.R. v. Malley, 62 So.3d 902 (Miss. 2011) (emotional distress elements)
- Franklin v. Thompson, 722 So.2d 688 (Miss. 1998) (defamation elements and standards)