Furay v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER denying 15 motion to have request for admission of LVNV Funding, LLC admitted by Plaintiff Jack E. Furay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 8/08/13. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JACK E. FURAY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 2:12-cv-1048
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff apparently propounded requests for admission to
defendants LVNV and Resurgent Capitol Services, LP (“Resurgent”), on
March 29, 2013.
Motion to Have Request for Admission of LVNV Funding,
LLC Admitted (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), Doc. No. 15, p. 1. Plaintiff
represents that he received a response from defendant Resurgent on
April 24, 2013, but that, as of May 17, 2013, defendant LVNV had not
responded to the requests for admission.
Id. at pp. 1-2.
This matter
is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion, in which plaintiff asks
the Court to deem those requests admitted. Defendant LVNV opposes
Plaintiff’s Motion, representing that it responded to plaintiff’s
requests for admission on two separate occasions.
Defendant LVNV
Funding, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for
Admissions Admitted (“Defendant LVNV’s Response”), Doc. No. 18.
Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs
requests for admission, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A party may serve on any other party a written request to
admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth
of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating
to:
(A) facts, the application
about either; and
of
law
to
fact,
or
opinions
(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1).
“A matter is admitted unless, within 30
days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed
serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed
to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 36(a)(3).
Defendant LVNV represents that, on April 22, 2013, it served on
plaintiff a cover letter and responses, which were contained in the
same envelope as were defendant Resurgent’s responses.
LVNV’s Response, pp. 1-2.
Plaintiff acknowledges that he received
defendant Resurgent’s responses on April 24, 2013.
Motion, p. 1.
Defendant
Plaintiff’s
Defendant LVNV further represents that, after plaintiff
advised that he had not received LVNV’s responses, “LVNV’s counsel
sent Plaintiff a second letter [on May 17, 2013], enclosing both the
original cover letter and responses of Resurgent and LVNV.”
LVNV’s Response, p. 2.
Defendant
Defendant LVNV has also submitted copies of
letters, dated April 22, 2013 and May 17, 2013, that were allegedly
served on plaintiff and responses to plaintiff’s requests for
admission with a certificate of service date of April 22, 2013.
at Doc. No. 18-1.
Id.
Plaintiff, who did not file a reply in support of
his motion, does not dispute defendant LVNV’s representations in this
regard.
2
The only evidence before the Court suggests that defendant LVNV
responded to plaintiff’s requests for admission within the time
permitted by Rule 36.
Plaintiff’s Motion, Doc. No. 15, is therefore
DENIED.
August 5, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?