The Texas Supreme Court recently conditionally granted mandamus relief to firm clients challenging the trial court’s denial of the clients’ motion to withdraw and amend responses to requests for admission. The Dallas Court of Appeals had previously denied relief.

The case stems from an accident where a pizza delivery driver struck another vehicle. The Plaintiffs served requests for admissions asking each corporate defendant to admit that the pizza delivery driver employee was acting within the scope of his employment with “i Fratelli Pizza” and “with You” at the time of the accident. The corporate defendants sought to amend their original responses to clarify that the delivery driver was employed only by Euless Pizza, the defendants were contesting that the delivery driver was acting within the scope of his employment when the crash occurred, and there is no legal entity named i Fratelli Pizza, which is only a brand name.

The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw and amend. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition. In a per curiam opinion after merits briefing, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with Mayer's position.

The Court reiterated the “basic principles” of requests for admissions, which are intended to be used as “a tool, not a trapdoor.” Admissions were “never intended to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense.” The Court found good cause and no undue prejudice to the Plaintiffs in permitting the amendment and withdrawal, as same is “not a high bar.”

Our clients were represented in the Supreme Court by Andrew J. Upton, William Roberts, Zach T. Mayer, Jason W. Kerr, and Amy L. Agnew at the merits stage, along with former senior attorney Dylan Drummond at the petition stage.

The case is In re Euless Pizza, LP, No. 23-0830, 2024 WL 4996714 (Tex. Dec. 6, 2024).