- 11 -
ignored, then paragraph 8 hardly matters. Thus it is clear that,
if a reply was to be filed at all (see second sentence of Rule
37(c), supra note 5), then paragraph 7 must be dealt with. Yet,
petitioners’ counsel filed a reply that dealt with paragraph 8 in
some detail, but ignored paragraph 7.
Respondent does not suggest that petitioners or their
counsel had any improper purpose in ignoring paragraph 7. We do
not discern from the record any improper purpose. We conclude
that petitioners’ failure to deny the affirmative allegations in
paragraph 7 of the answer was inadvertent.
Because of the critical role these paragraph 7 allegations
play in the instant case, as emphatically shown by respondent’s
motion for summary judgment based largely on these allegations,
justice would be served by allowing petitioners to deny the
paragraph 7 allegations, or some of them, unless such denial
would be unduly prejudicial to respondent.
In the instant case, petitioners’ proposed amendment seeks
to deny important allegations stated in respondent’s answer and
deemed admitted by petitioners’ failure to deny the allegations
in petitioners’ reply. A pleading may be amended to withdraw a
previous admission where the other party is not prejudiced. See
also Beeck v. Aquaslide “N” Dive Corp., 562 F.2d 537, 540 (8th
Cir. 1977) (“The burden is on the party opposing the amendment to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011