Hanson v. Hagerty Insurance Agency LLC et al
ORDER granting 20 Motion for leave to amend responses to defendants requests for admissions. The responses attached to 30 reply shall serve as Hansons amended responses to defendants first set of requests for admissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leonard T Strand on 11/6/2015. (des)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
HAGERTY INSURANCE AGENCY,
L.L.C. and ESSENTIA INSURANCE
This case is before me on plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 20) for leave to amend
responses (or, more accurately, non-responses) to defendants’ requests for admissions.
Defendants have filed a resistance (Doc. No. 25) and plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. No.
30). No party has requested oral argument.
Plaintiff John Hanson filed this action in the Iowa District Court for Franklin
County on February 15, 2015. See Doc. No. 3. The named defendants are Hagerty
Insurance Agency, L.L.C. (Hagerty), and Essentia Insurance Company (Essentia).
Hanson alleges that he purchased an Essentia insurance policy through Hagerty to cover
a 1967 Ford Mustang. He further alleges that in January 2014, he contracted with an
Indiana company to have restoration work performed on the Mustang. Hanson states
that while the vehicle was in Indiana, it was impounded by local law enforcement officers.
He contends that when he retrieved the vehicle from impound, it was damaged and several
parts were missing. Hanson contends that he made a claim under his Essentia policy
and received some reimbursement, but contends that more is owing. He asserts claims
for breach of contract and bad faith and requests actual and punitive damages.
On May 26, 2015, while the case was still pending in state court, defendants served
requests for admissions (the Requests) on Hanson. Pursuant to the Iowa Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Requests were deemed admitted if Hanson did not deny them by June 29,
2015. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.510(2). Hanson did not respond by that deadline.
On July 22, 2015, defendants removed this case to this court. See Doc. No. 2.
The removal was based, in part, on Hanson’s failure to respond to the Requests.
Specifically, the notice of removal stated that the Requests had been served, that Hanson
had not responded and that all of the Requests were thereby deemed admitted under Iowa
law. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. The notice further explained that one of the admitted Requests
is that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Id. at ¶ 12.
Based on that
admission, defendants alleged that removal was appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Id. at ¶¶ 12-14.
Because the notice of removal expressly referenced the Requests and was based,
in part, on Hanson’s failure to respond to them, one might assume that Hanson and his
counsel reacted by attempting to cure his failure to respond.
That did not happen.
Instead, the case proceeded in this court for three months with no suggestion that
Hanson’s failure to respond was inadvertent. On September 9, 2015, I approved and
entered the parties’ joint proposed scheduling order and discovery plan.
See Doc. No.
11. Among other things, that document established a deadline of May 10, 2016, for the
completion of discovery. Trial is scheduled to begin October 31, 2016.
See Doc. No.
On September 11, 2015, two days after the scheduling order was filed, defendants
filed a motion (Doc. No. 13) for summary judgment. Like their prior notice of removal,
the motion for summary judgment is based, in large part, on facts Hanson admitted by
failing to respond to the Requests. In particular, defendants contend that certain policy
exclusions are triggered by the admitted facts.
No. 13-3 at 1-3.
See, e.g., Doc. No. 13-1 at 9-11; Doc.
Even after being confronted with a dispositive motion that arose
directly from his failure to respond, Hanson did not act with any haste to cure that failure.
Instead, he filed his pending motion (Doc. No. 20) to amend his responses to the Requests
over a month later, on October 19, 2015. He served responses to the Requests on the
same date. See Doc. No. 30-1.
Hanson brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b),
Effect of an Admission; Withdrawing or Amending It. A matter
admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on
motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule
16(e), the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote
the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded
that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the
action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an admission for
any other purpose and cannot be used against the party in any other
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).1 This rule creates a two-pronged analysis under which the court
must consider both the effect on the litigation and the prejudice to the resisting party.
F.D.I.C. v. Prusia, 18 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Mid Valley Bank v. North
Valley Bank, 764 F. Supp. 1377, 1391 (E.D. Cal.1991)). Fortunately for Hanson, this
analysis does not require consideration of the movant’s reasons or excuses for an
Hanson does not argue that the removal of this action after the requests were already deemed
admitted under Iowa law impacts the analysis. As such, I will treat the requests for admissions
as if they had been served and admitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The first prong – the effect on the litigation – focuses on whether permitting the
amendment or withdrawal of an admission would promote the movant’s ability to have
the case heard and decided on its merits. Id.; see also Edeh v. Equifax Information
Servs., L.L.C., 295 F.R.D. 219, 224-25 (D. Minn. 2013). That is plainly the situation
here. As this court noted under similar circumstances: “Clearly, withdrawal of the
admissions would promote the presentation of the merits of the action. If the admissions
are permitted to stand, then those matters set forth in the request for admissions are
conclusively established and [plaintiff’s] claim is effectively done.”
Exum v. Portfolio
Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., No. C11-0075, 2012 WL 1831572, at *5 (N.D. Iowa May
18, 2012). I find that the first prong of the Rule 36(b) analysis weighs in Hanson’s
As for the second prong, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that
the prejudice contemplated by the rule “‘relates to the difficulty a party may face in
proving its case’ because of the sudden need to obtain evidence required to prove the
matter that had been admitted.”
Prusia, 18 F.3d at 640 (quoting Gutting v. Falstaff
Brewing Corp., 710 F.2d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1983), in turn quoting Brook Village
North Associates v. General Electric Co., 686 F.2d 66, 70 (1st Cir. 1982)). Notably,
“preparing a summary judgment motion in reliance upon an erroneous admission does
not constitute prejudice.” Id. (citing Davis v. Noufal, 142 F.R.D. 258, 259 (D.D.C.
1992) and Rabil v. Swafford, 128 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 1989)). The Eighth Circuit
explained its conclusion in Prusia as follows:
After examining the record, we find that Prusia has made no showing that
he would have been prejudiced by the admission. The FDIC moved to
amend its admissions prior to the district court's hearing on Prusia's
summary judgment motion and well in advance of the pretrial conference.
Although Prusia may have difficulty finding evidence to establish that the
FDIC was appointed receiver on July 28, 1986, this difficulty derives from
the inaccuracy of the admissions rather than the stage of the proceedings at
which the FDIC sought to amend its admissions.
The same is true here. While Hanson’s failure to respond to the Requests – even
after that failure was highlighted in the notice of removal – is inexplicable, the defendants
have not demonstrated prejudice within the meaning of Rule 36(b).
(understandably) filed an early motion for summary judgment based on Hanson’s
admissions, but allowing Hanson to withdraw those admissions will serve only to impose
on the defendants the same burden they would have had without the admissions. This
case is still at an early stage, with six months of discovery remaining. Trial is nearly a
year off. I find Prusia to be controlling in this situation and, therefore, that it compels
the relief Hanson seeks.2
For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff John Hanson’s motion (Doc. No. 20) for
leave to amend responses to defendants’ requests for admissions is granted.
responses (Doc. No. 30-1) attached to Hanson’s reply shall serve as Hanson’s amended
responses to defendants’ first set of requests for admissions.
Hanson’s motion failed to comply with this court’s rules in several respects. He did not attach
a copy of the requests for admissions themselves, or of his amended responses. See N.D. Ia.
L.R. 37(b). Nor did he file a brief containing a statement of the grounds for the motion and
citations to the authorities upon which he relies. See N.D. Ia. L.R. 7(d). His reply, however,
cured these deficiencies to some extent by (a) setting forth legal arguments in support of his
motion and (b) including the amended responses. See Doc. Nos. 30 and 30-1. I find that the
interests of justice and the court’s preference for deciding cases on their merits justify
overlooking Hanson’s procedural failures, this time. For future reference, however, Hanson
and his counsel are cautioned that disregarding the court’s rules is not a winning strategy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2015.
LEONARD T. STRAND
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?