Russell Elliot and Nelly Elliot v. Spe Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC., et. al
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiffs' failure to respond to Requests for Admission (RFAs) resulted in deemed admissions of their entire case. The Court denied the motion because the RFAs failed to provide pro se Plaintiffs with specific notice that non-response would result in deemed admissions, and ordered Plaintiffs to respond by March 23, 2026, to either withdraw or rest on those admissions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.“Based on lack of notice to pro se Plaintiffs that non-response to RFAs within 30 days results in deemed admissions, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 79.)” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that under Ninth Circuit precedent, pro se litigants require specific notice regarding the consequences of failing to respond to RFAs before such failures can be used as the sole basis for summary judgment. The order recites that the RFAs lacked this specific warning language. Therefore, denying the motion to allow the pro se plaintiffs an opportunity to address the admissions is consistent with the cited authority and the record presented. |
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a motion to withdraw deemed admissions or a motion to rest on them by March 23, 2026.“The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to refer to the RFAs and to either file a motion to withdraw their deemed admissions, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), or file a motion to inform the Court they wish to rest on their deemed admissions by March 23, 2026.” | agree with court This procedural directive is a reasonable exercise of the court's inherent authority to manage the case and ensure due process for pro se litigants, providing a clear path to resolve the discovery dispute before re-evaluating the summary judgment motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the specific due process protections afforded to pro se litigants in the Ninth Circuit regarding Requests for Admission. The court identifies a specific deficiency in the defendants' RFAs (lack of explicit deemed admission warning) and cites binding circuit authority (Klingele) and persuasive district court authority (Jefferson) to support its decision to deny summary judgment and provide the plaintiffs an opportunity to cure the defect. The reasoning directly addresses the motion and the record cited.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 RUSSELL ELLIOT and NELLY Case No. 24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB ELLIOT, 16 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY v. JUDGMENT (ECF No. 79) 18 SPE TERRA NOVA APARTMENT 19 OWNERS LLC., et. al, 20 Defendants. 21 22 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion for summary 23 judgment (ECF No. 79) submitted by Defendants Apartment Management Consultants 24 LLC, Monica Flores, and Spe Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC. 25 I. DISCUSSION 26 Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs’ lack of response 27 to their requests for admission (“RFAs”) translate to deemed concessions of Plaintiffs’ 28 entire case. (ECF No. 79.) However, courts within this Circuit have held that pro se 1 plaintiffs who diligently prosecute their case but might not know the ramifications for 2 failing to respond to requests for admission should be granted fair notice prior to the Court 3 granting summary judgment against plaintiffs. Jefferson v. Perez, No. CIV S-09-3008 4 GEB, 2011 WL 4760796, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (citing Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 5 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988)). 6 Before a matter may be deemed admitted against a pro se litigant for failure to 7 respond to a request, the RFA should contain a notice advising the party to whom the 8 request is made that, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 9 matters shall be deemed admitted unless said request is responded to within thirty (30) days 10 after service of the request or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow. 11 Jefferson, 2011 WL 4760796, at *2. There is some inconsistency, if not unfairness, in 12 allowing “deemed” admissions to stand as the sole basis of summary judgment against pro 13 se plaintiffs without notice when plaintiffs have otherwise prosecuted their case. Jefferson 14 v. Perez, No. CIV S-09-3008 GEB, 2011 WL 4760796, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011). 15 Here, though Defendants’ RFAs notify Plaintiffs that they need to respond within 30 16 days, Defendants did not include any language in those RFAs that the contents of the RFAs 17 would constitute deemed admissions in the event of non-response. (See ECF Nos. 79-1, 18 79-2.) 19 II. CONCLUSION 20 The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to refer to the RFAs and to either file a motion to 21 withdraw their deemed admissions, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), or file a 22 motion to inform the Court they wish to rest on their deemed admissions by March 23, 23 2026. Failure to respond by March 23, 2026 will result in automatic admission of the 24 matters requested, and may be relied upon as the basis for granting summary 25 judgment. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there 26 will be no trial. 27 If Defendants wish to file a response to Plaintiffs’ submissions in response to this 28 Order, they would need to do so by fourteen days following Plaintiffs’ response to this 1 |}Order. Once the parties submit their positions on whether Plaintiffs’ admissions should 2 withdrawn, amended or admitted and whether additional discovery is warranted, the 3 || court will decide the status of plaintiff's deemed admissions. 4 Based on lack of notice to pro se Plaintiffs that non-response to RFAs within 30 days 5 ||results in deemed admissions, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary 6 judgment. (ECF No. 79.) The motion for summary judgment is subject to renewal after 7 || resolution of the admissions issue. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Th ~ 10 || DATED: February 6, 2026 Duhark H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □□□