Nevada Real Estate Corp. v. Wu et al

Filing 31

ORDER Denying as moot 23 Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Served on Cross-Defendant Raymond Wu Admitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/6/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

NEVADA REAL ESTATE CORP.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RAMON WU, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01896-GMN-PAL
ORDER

12
13

Before the court is Defendants Chun Mei Xiao and O’Harmony Realty LLC’s Motion to Deem

14

#23).
Requests for Admissions Served on Cross-Defendant Ramon Wu Admitted (Dkt. #43). The motion

15

was filed April 4, 2013. No opposition was filed and the time for filing a response has now run.

16

Defendants seek an order deeming Cross-Defendant Raymond Wu’s failure to timely respond to

17

Request for Admissions served by mail January 29, 2013, admitted. The responses were due March 4,

18

2013. The motion represents that the responses were not received. Wu did not file a response to the

19

motion and the time for filing a response has now run.

20

This motion was unnecessary. By operation of law, the requests for admissions were deemed

21

admitted “unless, within thirty days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves

22

on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or

23

its attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). A matter admitted under Rule 36 “is conclusively established

24

unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Rule 36(b). Wu’s

25

failure to timely serve responses to the request for admissions deems the matters admitted. Any matter

26

“thus admitted is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or

27

amendment of the admission.” Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d, 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995).

28

///

1
2

There being no motion to withdraw or amend the admissions, the time for filing a response to
the request for admissions, and to file a response to this motion having run,

3

IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Served on Cross-

4

Defendant Raymond Wu Admitted is DENIED as moot. The requests are admitted by operation of

5

law and conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the

6

admissions.

7

Dated this 6th day of May, 2013.

8
9
10

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2