Nunez v. Valente< No. 1 X-a 25-0214 (App. Div. I, April 24, 2026) (J. Jacobs) https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/No.%201%20CA-SA%2025-0214%20Nunez%20v.%20Valente.pdf?ver=N1N4CjDLqalZ5yF63xHVwg%3D%3D

PARTY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ADMIT OR DENY UNDER RULE 36(b)  WHERE WITHDRAWAL “PROMOTES THE  PRESENTATION OF THE MERITS OF THE  ACTION” AND WHERE WITHDRAWAL “MATERIALLY ADVANCES THE EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE CASE” AND WHERE WITHDRAWAL DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE PARTY PROPOUNDING THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

Plaintiff and defendant lived together and were engaged to marry. Following their break up plaintiff filed this equitable action seeking partition of the house the two lived in. Defendant counterclaimed alleging numerous legal theories including breach of promise to marry, quiet title, unjust enrichment and declaratory relief.

Plaintiff was three days late responding to defendant's Rule 36(b) Requests for Admission which asked plaintiff to admit  he “(1) pressured her to add him to her home's deed; (2) didn't financially contribute to the home; (3) made [defendant] buy her own engagement ring; (4) cheated on her; (5) didn't intend to marry her; and (6) broke his promise to marry her.” Requests to Admit are deemed admitted when not responded to within 30 days. Plaintiff ultimately moved to withdraw his automatic admission to these requests claiming delay itself is not prejudicial to the defendant and withdrawal promotes the determination of the case on the merits.  The Maricopa County Superior Court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.  Plaintiff then brought this special action and the Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction, granted the relief sought and vacated and remanded the superior court decision.

Where, as here, allowing withdrawal of admissions, even if not case dispositive, would promote the presentation of the merits of the action without prejudicing the party propounding the Requests to Admit, withdrawal should be allowed. Plaintiff “showed far more than he had to – withdrawing these admissions would not merely ‘promote the presentation of the merits of the action,' as Rule 36(b) requires. He showed that ‘upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.'” Further, “delay by itself is not prejudice.”  Here defendant failed to show she “meaningfully relied on the deemed admissions. Indeed, rather than relying on the admissions during the few days [plaintiff] was late, [defendant's] counsel suggested ‘the case is over, as far as we are concerned, until the judge orders otherwise.” In furtherance of a an adjudication on the merits where no prejudice is shown requires the court allow withdrawal of the admissions.