The Texas Supreme Court has granted an emergency stay pending consideration of a petition for writ of mandamus in a case in which the trial court denied a defense motion for leave to amend its Original Admissions when defendant learned that they were factually incorrect.
In re Euless Pizza, LP; SF, GP, Management, LLC; and Story Glen, Inc. (No. 23-0830; petition filed October 6, 2023) arose from a 2021 traffic collision between a pizza delivery vehicle and a private vehicle. Plaintiffs brought suit against the pizza company shortly after the accident and served their first set of discovery, which included requests for admissions. In its response, the pizza company stated that it understood and believed that the driver of the delivery vehicle was acting within his scope of employment. After further investigation, however, the company concluded that the driver was not acting within the scope and had in fact engaged in unlawful racing causing serious bodily injury, for which he was subsequently arrested and indicted on two second-degree felony counts. Defendants filed motion for leave to amend the Original Admissions and noticed the motion for hearing. Plaintiffs objected to defense exhibits supporting the motion. The trial court heard the motion, declined to sustain plaintiff’s objections, and later denied the motion. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus and opposed motion for temporary relief and stay. Defendants filed those motions with SCOTX, which granted emergency relief.
The question before SCOTX is whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for leave to amend their admissions. Defendants argue that since its defense rests on the doctrine of respondeat superior, the trial court’s denial of their motion to leave deprives defendants of its defense in violation of due process. It further argues that its driver’s “serious criminal acts were both unforeseen and unforeseeable,” as the driver had a valid Texas driver’s license and a clean driving record, and there had been not reports prior to the incident that the driver had engaged in unsafe or reckless driving. There is also a question about the wording of plaintiffs’ requests for admissions, which plaintiffs explained as asking about a “joint enterprise” with other entities two weeks before they amended their pleading to add that theory of liability.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198.3 provides that admissions may be withdrawn or amended upon a showing of good cause and no undue prejudice. Defendants assert that they made the requisite showing by demonstrating that its mistake was “not intentional or the result of conscious indifference.” They point to SCOTX precedent for the proposition that “[w]hen, as here, admissions are merits-preclusive, good cause for the withdrawal of admissions exists when ‘there is no evidence of flagrant bad faith or callous disregard for the rules” (citations omitted). There is also evidence, defendants argue, of undue prejudice because plaintiffs’ trial preparation “has continued unabated and they continued to inquire about the scope of [the driver’s] employment—arguably addressed by [the RFAs] at depositions leading up to the hearing on the Motion for Leave.” The trial court’s ruling thus left defendants without an adequate appellate remedy and constituted a clear abuse of discretion.
This is not the first time that we have reported on a Dallas Court of Appeals decision not to correct what appears to us to be a fairly straightforward application of the rules and the case law. Here once more we see the critical importance of SCOTX’s careful policing of discovery orders that can have the effect of determining the defendant’s case before a jury ever gets to hear the facts.
