21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 564a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106HUNTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Admissions — Motion for relief from admissions is timely where case was not been set for trial, summary judgment hearing has not been held, deposition of corporate representative has not been taken, and discovery remains to be completed
JACKSONVILLE SPINE & INJURY CENTER, PL, a Florida Corporation (assignee of Hunter, Justin), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 162012SC-002277, Division A. February 13, 2014. Emmet F. Ferguson, III, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega and Yasmin Gilinsky, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. James C. Rinaman, James C. Rinaman, III & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ADMISSIONS
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing on January 7, 2014 on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Admissions and, having reviewed the motion, applicable case law, and heard argument of counsel, the Court hereby finds:
Factual Background
This is a PIP suit. Defendant propounded Requests for Admissions upon the Plaintiff on June 25, 2013. Plaintiff failed to file a response to admissions within thirty days as required by FRCP 1.370(a). Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the Plaintiff’s technical admissions and set the motion for hearing on January 7, 2014. On January 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Admissions and proposed Responses to Admissions. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Admissions was heard at hearing on January 7, 2014.
Conclusion of law
It is well settled Florida law that a liberal standard is favored in the amendment of admissions in order to allow disposition on the merits so that technically procured admissions do not preclude adjudication of legitimate claims. Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D991b].
This liberal standard is set forth in FRCP 1.370(b), which states, inter alia:
Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Subject to rule 1.200 governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by it and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits. . .
(emphasis added)
This Court finds that the Plaintiff has timely and properly moved for relief in this case as the case is not set for trial; the case has not had a summary judgment heard; the deposition of the Defendant’s corporate representative has not been taken; and discovery remains to be completed. See Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D991b]; see also Asset Management Consultants of Virginia, Inc., v. City of Tamarac, 913 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2415a]; Ponte Vedra Chiropractic & Physical Therapy, (a/a/o Helen Hollis) v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 944a (St. Johns County, Judge Charles J. Tinlin, 2012) (allowing the Defendant to amend admissions despite the fact that the Plaintiff had “relied on those admissions for one year”); Deltona Advanced Wellness Medical Center, As Assignee Of Joanne Murray v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 732d (Orange County Court, Judge Leon B. Cheek, 2004) (granting relief to a Defendant who filed responses to admissions over a year after they had been propounded by the Plaintiff); and Midland Credit Management v. Robin Hogans, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 853a (Duval County Court, Judge Pauline Drake, 2009) (noting the Court would consider a motion for relief at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition).
Additionally, the Defendant has not established that it would be prejudiced by granting Plaintiff relief from admissions and to proceed to the merits. Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Mkt. Letter, Inc., 413 So.2d 450, 451; see also Habib v. Maison Du Vin Francais, Inc., 528 So.2d 553, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Durrance v. Thompson, 486 So.2d 711, 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and Mahmoud S. Mahmoud and Mizhar Mahmoud v. Henry Clay King and Mattie King, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D1748a (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Admissions is granted and Plaintiff’s responses to admissions are deemed timely.
* * *
