Saroyan Lumber Co. v. El & El Wood Products Corp.
Docket: No. 03-56168
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 10, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Saroyan Lumber Company, Inc. appeals the denial of its motion to withdraw admissions and the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The admissions were deemed admitted by operation of law due to Saroyan's failure to respond timely to the defendants’ request, as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). Saroyan did not seek to withdraw these admissions until after the discovery cut-off and after the defendants filed for summary judgment. On appeal, Saroyan argues two points: 1. The district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw admissions, asserting that allowing withdrawal would benefit the case's merits without causing prejudice to the defendants. The district court acknowledged that the first prong of Rule 36(b) was met, but determined that withdrawal would prejudice the defendants because they would face challenges in proving their case, having relied on the admissions during the discovery period. 2. Saroyan contends that the district court should not have considered the defendants’ summary judgment motion, which was filed one day after the motion cut-off date. The district court has broad discretion in managing its docket and enforcing scheduling orders. Although it is unclear if the court was aware of the motion’s timing, Saroyan did not object to its timeliness. Additionally, the defendants argued that the motion cut-off was not strictly applicable as the parties had not yet held their initial meeting with the settlement officer, a prerequisite for filing summary judgment motions. Ultimately, the court found no abuse of discretion in either the consideration of the defendants' motion or the denial of Saroyan’s motion to withdraw admissions. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, noting that if the deemed admissions remain, summary judgment is warranted, and if they are withdrawn, it must be denied. The disposition is designated as not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.