Ross v. Pace

87 P.3d 593 (Okla. 2004) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · February 24, 2004 · No. No. 98,149

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate a summary judgment entered after the plaintiff failed to respond to requests for admission and failed to appear at the summary judgment hearing. The court held that the admissions were deemed admitted, summary judgment was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion; it vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Winchester, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
February 24, 2004
Docket number
No. 98,149
Procedural posture
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted Pace's petition for certiorari after the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the district court's denial of Ross's motions to withdraw or amend deemed admissions and to vacate the summary judgment entered for Pace.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion; the appellate court determines whether the trial court exercised sound discretion upon sufficient cause shown in refusing to vacate the judgment.
Precedential value
Published Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Betty Ross v. Betty Pace
Disposition
vacated

Topics

default judgmentsummary judgmentdiscovery disputeappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil procedureTortsAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Ross's motion to vacate the summary judgment.
  2. Whether Ross's failure to answer the requests for admission caused the matters to be deemed admitted and supported summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. Because Ross failed to respond within thirty days, the matters in Pace's requests for admission were deemed admitted and conclusively established.
  2. Summary judgment for Pace was proper because the deemed admissions established that Pace had the green light and right of way and Ross did not, leaving no substantial controversy as to any material fact.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the summary judgment.

Key quotations

The discretion granted trial judges in opening or vacating their judgments during term extends to a reasonable degree in both directions. Unless the refusal to vacate a default judgment is an abuse of that discretion, such order is not reversible. (¶ 11)

Factual background

Ross alleged that she entered an intersection on a green light and was struck while turning left by Pace, who allegedly ran a red light. Pace served requests for admission asking Ross to admit that Pace had the green light and right of way and that Ross did not. Ross failed to respond within thirty days, did not respond to Pace's summary-judgment motion, and did not appear at the hearing. The requests were deemed admitted, and the district court entered summary judgment for Pace.

Procedural history

Ross sued Pace over an automobile collision. After Ross failed to answer requests for admission, Pace moved for summary judgment; the admissions were deemed admitted, and the district court granted summary judgment for Pace. Ross moved to withdraw or amend the admissions and to vacate the judgment, but the district court denied those motions. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated that opinion and affirmed the district court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…