Requests for admission; MCR 2.312(A) & (B); Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone; Judicial admissions; The trial court’s discretion; Oral motion; MCR 2.119(A)

Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant-Medallion Management summary disposition based on requests for admission, the court vacated and remanded. Plaintiff sued for injuries he sustained when defendants-Henrickses’ dog bit him on Medallion Management’s premises, where he and the Henrickses lived. The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition for Medallion Management on the basis of its requests for admission, which it held must remain admitted because plaintiff failed to move for leave to file late responses. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to analyze the merits of his argument that he was entitled to file late responses to the requests for admission. The court found remand was required for further consideration. The trial court “reasoned ‘the deemed admissions must remain admitted’ because plaintiff never ‘moved [it] for permission’ to ‘file late responses[.]’” Plaintiff claimed this was “error because he complied with MCR 2.119(A), and” the court agreed. At the hearing on Medallion Management’s summary disposition motion, “plaintiff made an oral motion. Plaintiff’s counsel stated: ‘I request that the Court allow our late answers to [the] request[s] for admission so this case may be decided on the merits.’ Because the motion was made during a hearing, it did not have to be in writing. The trial court should have considered the merits of plaintiff’s arguments. By holding that it lacked discretion, the trial court abdicated its duty to consider the matter, which necessarily resulted in an abuse of discretion.”