Ternes v. Ternes et al, No. 4:2008cv00455 - Document 75 (N.D. Okla. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 45 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (jcm, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TERESO ANNE TERNES, and TERESO ANNE TERNES in her capacity as Trustee of the TERNES FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 08-CV-455-FHM KIMBERLY K. TERNES, TERRENCE DAN MARTIN, and RE-NEW WOOD, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. 44] and Defendants Motion to Withdraw Admissions [Dkt. 45] have been fully briefed and are ripe for determination. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. 44] is DENIED, and Defendants Motion to Withdraw Admissions [Dkt. 45] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment primarily on the basis of Requests for Admissions which were served on Defendants Kimberly Ternes (Kimberly) and Terrence Dan Martin (Martin), which were not answered within 30 days after service, and which are therefore deemed admitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Defendants seek leave of court under Rule 36(b) to permit withdrawal or amendment of the deemed admissions. The court finds that withdrawal and amendment should be permitted. Withdrawal and amendment of the admissions will promote presentation of the merits of the action. Further, there has been no showing that such action will unduly prejudice Plaintiffs in maintaining the action on the merits. SO ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2010.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
