The Texas Supreme Court has reversed the Dallas Court of Appeals’ denial of defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus in a case in which the trial court refused to permit them to amend their responses to requests for admissions.
In re Euless Pizza LP; SF, GP, Management, LLC; and Story Glen, Inc. (No. 23-0830; granted December 6, 2024) arose from a personal injury action in which the driver of a pizza delivery vehicle, while racing another driver at 80 mph on city streets, broadsided a vehicle occupied by an elderly couple. Both suffered serious injuries, and the driver was arrested and charged with two counts of second-degree felony racing causing serious bodily injury. The couple sued the driver and three corporate defendants. Plaintiffs sent discovery requests to the three corporate defendants seeking admissions from each one of them that the driver was acting in the course and scope of employment when the accident occurred. Each defendant admitted that the driver was working for “I Fratelli Pizza” when the accident occurred, but only Euless admitted course and scope with respect to itself. A few months later, the corporate defendants moved to amend their requests for admissions to withdraw the admissions of course and scope. They also amended other discovery responses to specify that the driver was employed by Euless but that each defendant was contesting course and scope. The trial court denied the defendants’ request to withdrawn their previous admissions. The defendants sought mandamus relief, which the Dallas Court of Appeals denied.
In a per curiam opinion, SCOTX reversed and conditionally granted mandamus relief. The Court observed that requests for admissions were “never intended to be used on a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense” (citations omitted), and that “the trial court should allow a party to withdraw or amend “upon a showing of (1) good cause, and (2) no undue prejudice” (citations omitted). The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendants’ motion to withdraw their admissions. First, the defendants established good cause by explaining that their initial responses to the RFAs were based on a mistake and that, once they conducted further discovery, they discovered that the driver was engaged in felonious conduct that was outside his scope of employment (unforeseeable criminal act). In the absence of evidence that the defendants acted with “conscious indifference, flagrant bad faith, or callous disregard for the rules,” the trial court should have granted their motion to amend. Second, as to the undue prejudice question, the Court observed that discovery is still ongoing in the case and that, following cancellation of the initial trial date, the trial court has not reset the case for trial. There could thus be no undue prejudice. Additionally, by denying the defendants the opportunity to amend their discovery responses, the trial court deprived the defendants of their opportunity to contest the merits and controvert plaintiffs’ scope-of-employment allegations (citations omitted).
