Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank N A et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 54 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 01/09/2015. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

BRITNEY N. JONES

DOCKET NO. 5:13-cv-2513

VERSUS

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER1
Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is a
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses, [doc. # 54], filed by Plaintiff Britney N. Jones.
Defendant Cox Management Services (“Cox”) opposes the Motion. [doc. # 64]. For reasons set
forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
Background
Plaintiff served Cox with six requests for admission (“the Requests”) on September 26,
2014. [doc. # 54-2, p. 7-8]. On October 3, 2014, Cox responded and denied each request
without explanation or qualification. Id. at 9-10. On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel
deposed Michael Cox, Cox’s founder and president, and Mr. Cox admitted that the matters
Plaintiff requested Cox to admit were indeed true, thus prompting the instant Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Expenses. Id. at 12-23. However, the discovery deadline in this case was
October 14, 2015, and the deadline for serving written discovery was 30 days prior to that date,

1

As this is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive
of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing
order of this Court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a)
and L.R. 74.1(W).

or September 14, 2014. Therefore, the requests for admission were untimely sought, and this
court declines to impose sanctions for the defendant’s failure to admit the matters which were
the subject thereof.
The court further notes that, even if the requests had been timely sought, there has been
no showing by the plaintiff that any additional expenses were incurred as a result of the denial.
First it is obvious that no additional expenses were incurred as a result of the preparation of the
requests themselves. Second, the October 15th deposition was scheduled prior to the denial, and
plaintiff has not disputed defendant’s assertion that the matters in the requests were not the only
subjects sought to be or which were covered in the deposition. Finally, the court having granted
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing this case in its entirety, the admissions
sought were, after all, of no substantial importance. 1 Therefore, the motion for attorneys fees is
hereby DENIED.

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2) provides:

If a party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36 and if the requesting party
later proves a document to be genuine or the matter true, the requesting party may
move that the party who failed to admit pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred in making that proof. The court must so order unless:
(A) the request was held objectionable under Rule 36(a);
(B) the admission sought was of no substantial importance;
(C) the party failing to admit had a reasonable ground to believe that it might prevail
on the matter; or
(D) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.
FED . R. CIV . P. 37(c)(2).
2

In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 9th day of January, 2015.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3