Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grants Gregory Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, as modified, against Clarence Byrd. The court holds that Byrd’s failure to respond to requests for admissions rendered the matters admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 and denies Byrd’s motion to withdraw those admissions. Based on the deemed admissions and other undisputed evidence, the court finds Taylor established claims for fraudulent inducement, actual fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion, while limiting the damages sought.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Byrd's failure to respond to Taylor's requests for admissions caused the matters requested to be conclusively admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.
- Whether Byrd satisfied the requirements for withdrawal or amendment of the deemed admissions under Rule 36(b).
- Whether the deemed admissions and other undisputed evidence established Taylor's claims for fraudulent inducement, actual fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion as a matter of law.
- Whether Taylor was entitled to the requested compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs.
Holdings
- A matter in a properly served request for admission is automatically admitted when the responding party fails to answer or object within the applicable period, and the admission is conclusively established unless withdrawn or amended by court order.
- Byrd could not withdraw the deemed admissions because he failed both prongs of Rule 36(b): withdrawal would not further presentation of the merits in light of his continuing discovery failures, and withdrawal would prejudice Taylor, who reasonably relied on the admissions after discovery closed.
- Taylor established fraudulent inducement as a matter of law through the deemed admissions and undisputed evidence.
- Taylor established actual fraud as a matter of law.
- Taylor established unjust enrichment as a matter of law.
- Taylor established conversion as a matter of law because the $110,000 constituted identifiable funds, Taylor had ownership or a right to possession, and Byrd wrongfully exercised dominion over the funds.
- Taylor was entitled to $110,000 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, but not the additional $20,000 for the unpleaded 15 Blades investment or $15,000 for lost time value and opportunity costs.
Key quotations
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (4)
“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.” (5)
“Courts in this district have held that this factor weighs in favor of parties who have attempted to file untimely responses or have otherwise proposed amended admissions, despite failing to meet the original deadline.” (8)
“As a result, the Court concludes that [p]laintiff reasonably relied on [d]efendant’s deemed admissions in determining how to pursue discovery and summary judgment and therefore would be prejudiced if it could not rely on them here.” (10)
Factual background
Byrd solicited Taylor's investment in RN Appz, LLC, representing that the company had no debt, had business opportunities pending with INOVA, and that Byrd had substantial cryptocurrency assets. Taylor ultimately invested $110,000 and entered a written Investment Agreement under which he was to receive a 20 percent ownership interest and business information. RN Appz did not produce the promised business opportunities or meaningful projects, and Byrd later declined Taylor's request to be bought out and failed to provide requested dissolution and financial documentation. In discovery, Byrd failed to respond to requests for admissions, which consequently established facts concerning his misrepresentations, retention and use of Taylor's funds, and Taylor's resulting loss.
Procedural history
Taylor filed a four-count complaint alleging fraudulent inducement, actual fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion arising from a $110,000 business investment. Byrd filed a response construed as an answer, but failed to comply with multiple discovery obligations, including responding to requests for admissions served on July 30, 2025. After the discovery deadline passed and the court warned Byrd that the requests were deemed admitted, Taylor moved for summary judgment. The court denied Byrd's motion to continue, previously denied his motion to compel arbitration because he was not a party to the Investment Agreement, denied his motion to withdraw the deemed admissions, and granted Taylor summary judgment on all four counts with modified damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs subject to petition.
Remand instructions
No remand. Taylor must submit a petition for reasonable attorneys' fees containing a breakdown of hours billed and information relevant to the Barber factors and other applicable law. An order will issue granting summary judgment as modified.