Summary
This Second Circuit opinion affirms a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of labor union welfare funds against concrete companies for failing to make required fringe benefit contributions under a collective bargaining agreement. The appellate court held that the district court properly deemed the defendants' failure to timely respond to requests for admissions as implied admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Consequently, these admissions established material facts supporting summary judgment, and the defendants failed to present genuine disputes regarding the audit findings or damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly deemed plaintiffs' requests for admissions admitted when defendants failed to respond timely.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to permit withdrawal or amendment of the admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b).
- Whether summary judgment was proper despite defendants' contention that five workers performed non-covered drainage work and therefore were improperly included in the damages calculation.
Holdings
- Rule 36 permits requests seeking admissions of facts and the application of law to fact; the requests at issue were primarily factual or concerned, at most, the application of law to fact rather than legal conclusions unrelated to the case.
- The district court acted within its discretion by treating defendants' unanswered or untimely requests for admissions as admitted and by refusing to permit withdrawal or amendment of those admissions.
- Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment because defendants' admissions conclusively established that the five disputed workers performed covered work, and defendants produced no admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the claimed contributions.
Key quotations
“Rule 36 explicitly provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit . . . 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[.]”” (9)
“Since Rule 36 admissions, whether express or by default, are conclusive as to the matters admitted, they cannot be overcome at the summary judgment stage by contradictory affidavit testimony or other evidence in the summary judgment record.” (16)
“Accordingly, we discern no error in the district court’s decision granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.” (17)
Factual background
Manny P. Concrete Co., Inc. entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Cement and Concrete Workers District Council requiring contributions to jointly administered benefit funds and specified payroll deductions for covered work. An audit for March 25, 2015, through December 31, 2018, identified approximately $694,308.35 in unpaid contributions and dues checkoffs. Defendants failed to timely respond to multiple discovery requests, including requests for admissions, and did not produce evidence sufficient to dispute that the workers identified in the audit performed covered work.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed the action on April 11, 2019, and amended the complaint on September 6, 2019. After extensive discovery violations, the district court sanctioned defendants by precluding reliance on undisclosed documents. The district court deemed Manny P.'s unanswered requests for admissions admitted and granted plaintiffs summary judgment on June 9, 2023. The Second Circuit affirmed.