Month: September 2021

Can the failure to respond to Admissions be fixed? New Court of Appeals opinion says “Maybe.”

As a young lawyer, one of the worst tasks I was ever given was to cover a hearing on a motion to deem admissions admitted, where the other lawyer appeared to have simply overlooked the deadline to respond.

Requests for admission are, basically, what they sound like. One party in a lawsuit sends another party a written demand that they admit or deny a specific thing–generally a fact or that a document is authentic. Under Rule 36.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Procedure, if the other party doesn’t respond in 30 days, the fact is conclusively admitted for purposes of the lawsuit.

And, yes, a lawyer receiving these requests and ruin a client’s case if she is not good at calendaring or paperwork.

And many lawyers are not.

So, 20 years ago, as a brand new associate, I was sent down to Williamson County Chancery Court to argue a motion like this where the other lawyer–apparently–simply forgot to respond and, as a result, his client’s fate was at the mercy of a paperwork oversight.

And he was not happy to be arguing his side of the case.

For my side, it wasn’t a particularly hard argument. You tell the Judge the date of the Requests, add 30 days, tell the Judge that there was no response by that date, and cite Rule 36.01.

What made it hard is that the lawyer on the other side was a well-known, respected lawyer, and, generally, as a matter of courtesy, lawyers don’t play “gotcha” with each other on paperwork issues like this. And, even to me–a brand-new lawyer–it was a tough request.

Ultimately, Judge Easter stared at Rule 36.01 for a long time and decided to not hold the other lawyer to 30 days. He gave him more time. I was–frankly–happy to lose that day.

I was reminded of all that when I read the Court of Appeals opinion from yesterday, in Masterfit Medical Supply v. Samuel Bada, No. W2020-01709-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Apps., Sept. 23, 2021). In that case, a party lost at the trial court level based on his failure to respond to admissions on unpaid invoices.

A critical component of the Court’s opinion, however, was that the complaining party never filed a motion under Rule 36.02 to have the admission withdrawn or amended.

Under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02, “[a]ny matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Subject to the provisions of Rule 16 governing amendment of a pre-trial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining the action or defense on the merits.”

Courts favor deciding cases on the merits and that’s why Rule 36.02 makes sense. As a matter of equity, all kinds of other sworn statements can be clarified, amended, and modified, so why should un-answered admissions be unassailable, where no particular prejudice results?

That day in Williamson County, the other lawyer didn’t argue this rule, but, based on Judge Easter’s clear desire to consider the merits (and not a technicality), it’s clear that the Judge would have welcomed such a request.

Can a party ask for Rule 60 relief on its own agreed judgment?

Yesterday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued an opinion on whether a party can ask that their own “agreed” judgment be set aside under Rule 60 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. It’s an interesting factual scenario, and the opinion provides a good recap of the law regarding Rule 60.02 relief.

The case is City of Memphis, Tenn. v. Beale Street Development Corporation, No. W2020-00523-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Apps., Sept. 21, 2021). In short, the defendant’s lawyer executed an agreed judgment that fully resolved the dispute, but, then, 364 days later, the defendant filed a Motion for Relief under Rule 60.02, arguing that its board never, in fact, properly approved the settlement agreement. As such, the lawyer should never have signed the judgment and the trial court should not have entered it.

In considering a party’s motion to set aside an agreed judgment that the attorney expressly agreed to, the Court spent some time with Rule 60.02, including on the following points.

A Rule 60.02 motion is reviewed under an “abuse of discretion standard.” Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012). This means that the appellate court will consider whether “the trial court applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that cause[d] an injustice to the complaining party.” Id. The “trial court’s ruling ‘will be upheld as long as reasonable minds can disagree as to [the] propriety of the decision made.” Id.

That’s a pretty high standard, so much so that Rule 60.02 relief is called “an exceptional remedy.”

One of the bases to set aside a judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 is for “fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” This generally means that the other party or its counsel committed some fraud–like lying about the court date or forging a signature. But, the Court of Appeals says, this conduct must be committed by an adverse party (just like Rule 60 says). Action by a party’s own attorney will not support relief under Rule 60.02.

Finally, the Court noted that the motion was not timely. Of course, the rule expressly one year as an outer limit, but, here, the facts dictate that the defendants should have brought this motion sooner (maybe in response to the article on the front page of the Memphis newspaper the day after the settlement was announced).

“Rule 60.02 does not ‘permit a litigant to slumber on [its] claims and then belatedly attempt to relitigate issues long since laid to rest.’” Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114, 127 (Tenn. 2013).

Motions brought under this rule are a hassle for the judgment creditor for obvious reasons: Who wants their hard work to be challenged years later? But, Tennessee Courts don’t look favorably on these motions and rarely grant them and, when they do, Rule 60.02 is strictly enforced on its terms.

Keep this case handy the next time you receive one of these motions.

Who knew Pineapple Express had such technically accurate legal scenes?

Service of process can drive me and my clients crazy. Before filing the lawsuit, I am in total control of all aspects of the timing of the case, from the initial review to filing the Complaint.

But, once I file the complaint and send it to be served on the defendant, we are sometimes at the mercy of luck and a little bit of good timing.

Nobody wants to be served with a lawsuit (for obvious reasons), and, until you get them served, they have no responsibility to answer and the case doesn’t move forward.

In many cases, a plaintiff has to employ creative tactics to get the process into the hands of the defendant.

You’ve probably seen this in a movie, where the process server hides in the bushes, hands somebody a piece of paper, and yells “You’ve been served!” as he runs away.

So, yes, I thought about the opening sequence from Pineapple Express, when I read a recent opinion by Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Lyle about an evading defendant and an irritated process server, in Joyce B. Martin v. Devon Lawrence, et. al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 20-1091-III.

In that case, the process server was knocking on the defendant’s door, had confirmed that the defendant was inside the house, and, when the defendant refused to come to the door, attempted service pursuant to Rule 4.04(1) by “plac[ing] the summons and complaint into a clear plastic sleeve and tap[ing] it to the glass front door before leaving the [Defendant’s house].”

(The opinion was silent on whether the process server yelled “You’ve been served!” as he walked away, but I would bet money that he did.)

On these facts, however, Chancellor Lyle found the service ineffective. Rule 4.04(1) provides that if a defendant “evades or attempts to evade service,” then the process server may perfect service of process “by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, whose name shall appear on the proof of service, or by delivering the copies to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the individual served.”

Citing this Rule’s plain language—which expressly imposes a requirement that the summons be left “with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein”—the Judge found that merely taping the summons to the outside of a home does not meet the statutory requirements, even under these circumstances.

(Note: You can read more analysis of this opinion (and see a full copy) by visiting the Nashville Bar Association’s Trial Court Opinion page, which will be updated soon with more notable decisions.)

In a surprise twist, then, Seth Rogen’s stoner private process server turns out to be a highly effective process server whose work would be approved even by Chancellor Lyle (though she may question other aspects about his…demeanor and tactics).

In each instance in the movie clip he, in fact, personally serves each person. We lawyers can be awful to watch movies with, since we love to nit-pick the accuracy of the Hollywood depictions of the job, but this sequence complies with the law (except the part when he’s driving and using illegal substances).

But, other than that–congratulations to Seth Rogen–this clip could be shown in a first-year Civil Procedure class. Who knew?

The 341: Too Busy to Blog, but Listen to this Podcast by Prof. Anthony

You can always tell when I get really, really busy with work: I stop law blogging.

Which is a perfectly reasonable outcome, of course. But, having said that, August was a busy month, so here are some quick notes.

The Tennessee Bar Association interviewed me about starting my own firm during the pandemic. I know we’ve reached peak podcast capacity, but I really enjoy the TBA’s podcasts featuring interesting legal and lawyer stories from across the State. In a time where we’re not seeing each other in court or at events, it’s nice to virtually catch up with what is going on.

I was featured on the TBA’s Sidebar broadcast, and the topic was the decision to leave my long-time law firm to start my own practice. The full episode can be found at this link or by finding Sidebar on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher or TuneIn.

It was a fun podcast, and, to my surprise, I didn’t collapse into a ball of cringe when I listened to it. Yeah, I used the word “pivot” way more than I (believe) I do in real life, but, otherwise, I was pleased with the message.

As many of you know, I have a tendency toward saying more than is sometimes necessary, and I credit my wife’s advance coaching in that regard. Lena is a writer and a master content creator, and she made sure that I kept it reasonably on topic.

Except, of course, for the opening stories: She expressly told me not to talk about the RV trip or the boat. Oh well, I hope you all enjoyed it. (And, if I have kept one person from buying a boat this summer, my personal embarrassment will have been worth it.)

I’m teaching Client Communication at Belmont’s Law School this semester. Part of the reason that my schedule has been so tight is that I am teaching this fall as an Adjunct Professor at Belmont University’s College of Law.

The course focuses on strategies and best practices in communicating with clients, witnesses, and other parties in the legal system, at all stages of the legal process.

A central tenent of my new firm is to focus on providing client-centered service, asking every step of the way: How are we serving our clients and what can we do better? This is the future, and my goal is to share this mind-set with the next generation of lawyers.

For the first week, I pointed out that all them, whether or not they had any law-related work experience, have already communicated with clients. In our modern age, your social media is the first line of communication about who you are, what you do, and whether you can be trusted. (Hence, my wife’s advice to icksnay on the boatsnay).

The first week’s assignment was my age-old advice: Google Yourself. The students were tasked with seeing what results a potential client would find, deciding which ones were good (or bad), and what action they could take to minimize or eliminate the bad ones (like ones complaining about boat ownership in the Nation’s Newspaper).

Hint: Invariably, a person’s LinkedIn page ends up being the highest result (or way up there). My new advice (and part of last week’s assignment): Create a good LinkedIn page for yourself. The best way to decrease the impact of negative information online is to lower that information in the google search results.

If LinkedIn has a fast track to the top of the list, create a LinkedIn page that is so robust with information (name, biography, practice areas, contact information) that a potential client or employer never clicks on your Myspace page from 2007 (an actual top result for one of the students).

I’m two classes in, and, so far, it’s been extremely rewarding and extremely hard work. Hug a teacher, guys, they’re the real heroes.

Side-note: I’ll be back with the law blogging soon–there have been lots of fun new opinions issued.