Valenzuela v. West
1 CA-CV 15-0781
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Valenzuela, then incarcerated, sued alleging sexual assault and other injuries arising from her time at a Transitional Living Communities facility; Jeremy West (also Jeremy Bloeman) was one defendant.
- West was served and answered denying the allegations; on May 5, 2015 he served Rule 36 requests for admissions on Valenzuela at the Florence prison.
- Valenzuela failed to respond within the Rule 36 time frame; West moved for summary judgment in June 2015 arguing the unanswered requests were deemed admitted and defeated her claims.
- Valenzuela later told the court she never received the requests and submitted a Buckeye facility mail log, but the requests had been served while she was at Florence.
- The court granted an extension to September 21 for Valenzuela to respond to the summary judgment motion; she failed to timely respond and the court granted summary judgment for West. Valenzuela appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because Valenzuela never received West’s Rule 36 requests | Valenzuela: She never received the requests, so the requests were not deemed admitted and summary judgment should not rest on them | West: Requests were served; failure to respond within 40 days deemed the matters admitted, removing factual disputes and supporting summary judgment | Court: Affirmed — Buckeye mail log was irrelevant (requests served at Florence); unanswered requests were deemed admitted and Valenzuela failed to timely oppose summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting summary judgment when plaintiff missed court deadlines | Valenzuela: Nonreceipt excused noncompliance and court abused its discretion | West: Local rules permit deeming noncompliance as consent to granting motion; plaintiff did not timely respond even after extension | Court: No abuse — rule permitting deeming noncompliance justified summary disposition; plaintiff did not produce evidence creating a genuine factual dispute |
| Burden allocation on summary judgment where requests for admissions are at issue | Valenzuela: (implicit) she had opportunity to show disputes if given relief from deemed admissions | West: He met initial burden by showing admissions removed evidence on essential elements; burden then shifted to Valenzuela to produce evidence | Court: Held West met initial burden; Valenzuela failed to show competent evidence to create a triable issue |
| Relevance of plaintiff’s submitted mail log from different facility | Valenzuela: Mail log from Buckeye indicates mail inconsistencies, suggesting she did not receive the requests | West: Requests were served at Florence; Buckeye log does not speak to receipt at Florence | Court: Buckeye log irrelevant because requests were served while Valenzuela was at Florence; it did not create a genuine issue of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 (1990) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting explained)
- TWE Ret. Fund Trust v. Ream, 198 Ariz. 268, 8 P.3d 1182 (App. 2000) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, 263 P.3d 683 (App. 2011) (appellate discretion to consider deficient briefs on the merits)
- Berry v. Robotka, 9 Ariz. App. 461, 453 P.2d 972 (1969) (opponent to summary judgment must come forward with competent evidence to create a factual issue)