Fredrick Torrez v. Midland Credit Management Incorporated

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Plaintiff Fredrick Torrez’s motion to deem Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 2, and 5 admitted. The court held that Midland Credit Management’s amended responses complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. The court also denied Torrez’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions, while declining to award Defendant fees and costs and warning that future frivolous sanctions motions could result in such an award.

Holdings

1. The amended responses complied with Rule 36, and the Court would not deem Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 2, and 5 admitted.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to Rule 11 sanctions because he failed to show that Defendant's motion contained frivolous legal contentions, unsupported factual contentions, or was presented for an improper purpose.
3. The Court declined at that time to award Defendant the fees and costs it incurred in responding to Plaintiff's sanctions motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's amended responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 2, and 5 complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 such that the requests should not be deemed admitted.
2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to Rule 11 sanctions based on Defendant's motion to extend scheduling deadlines.
3. Whether Defendant was entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in responding to Plaintiff's sanctions motion.

Disposition

denied