Yu et al v. Five Boars, LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 53 MOTION TO ADMIT AS FACTS CERTAIN STATEMENTS signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. (KMP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

KYONG OK YU, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. C17-1249-JPD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ADMIT AS FACTS
CERTAIN STATEMENTS

FIVE BOARS, LLC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court upon plaintiffs’ July 19, 2018 motion to admit as

16

facts certain statements based upon defendants’ failure to respond to the requests for admissions

17

pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 36. Dkt. 53. See also Dkt. 54 (Park Decl.). To date, defendants have

18

failed to respond to plaintiffs’ motion or plaintiffs’ request for admission.

19
20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 provides, in relevant part,
(1) Scope.

21
22
23
24
25

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 of law to fact, or opinions about either; and
(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
....

26

ORDER
PAGE - 1

4

(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. 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. A
shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the
court.

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1), (3). Once admitted, the matter “is conclusively established unless the

1
2
3

6
7
8
9

court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission” pursuant to Rule 36(b).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions (“RA”) were sent to defendants on June 12,

10

2018. Dkt. 54 (Park Decl.) at ¶ 2. Despite the parties’ agreement that defendants could have a

11

few extra days to respond, to date, defendants have never provided answers to plaintiffs’

12

requests for admissions. Id. at ¶ 6. In addition, defendants did not file a response to the instant

13

motion. Dkt. 53. Thus, plaintiffs argue that all matters presented in the RA should be deemed

14
15
16
17

admitted because no response was provided within thirty days as required by Rule 36, and
plaintiffs’ motion, Dkt. 52, remains unopposed.
Plaintiffs’ motion, Dkt. 53, is GRANTED. It appears undisputed that defendants failed

18

to respond to plaintiffs’ requests for admission within thirty (30) days or at any time before

19

plaintiffs’ motion was filed. The Court therefore considers the matters addressed in plaintiffs’

20

requests as admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).1

21
22
23
24
25
26

Defendants’ failure to respond will have significant implications for the pending
motion for partial summary judgment, as plaintiffs asked defendants to admit that plaintiff
Kyong Ok Yu was not a professional employee with a professional license, an executive
employee, an administrative employee, or otherwise involved in the hiring/firing of employees,
bookkeeping, accounting, tax reporting, payroll accounting, payroll check writing, vendor
payments, or other administrative works that might have made her qualify for administrative
exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Washington Minimum Wage Act
(WMWA) overtime pay requirements. Dkt. 53 at 6.
1

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel for both parties.

2
3

DATED this 28th day of August, 2018.

A

4
5

JAMES P. DONOHUE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 3