Nunez v. Valente

── Nunez v. Valente ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE DANIEL NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. IRENE O’CONNOR VALENTE, Respondent. No. 1 CA-SA 25-0214 FILED 04-24-2026 Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2024-014615 The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge (Retired) The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Law Office of Roman A. Kostenko, Phoenix By Roman A. Kostenko Counsel for Petitioner Hrnicek Law, PLLC, Phoenix By Michael J. Hrnicek Counsel for Respondent  NUNEZ v. VALENTE Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams joined. Judge Michael S. Catlett filed a dissenting opinion. J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 In this special action, Plaintiff Daniel Nunez challenges the superior court’s denial of his motion to withdraw admissions under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 36(b). When a party fails to respond to requests for admission within 30 days, as Nunez did here, they are deemed admitted. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 36(a). But Rule 36(b) lets a party withdraw such admissions by leave of court if withdrawal would: (1) promote the presentation of the case’s merits; and (2) not prejudice the party who requested the admissions. Here, the admissions would decide most or all of the case, and Defendant Irene Valente moved to deem them admitted when Nunez’s responses were three days late. ¶2 We exercise our discretionary special action jurisdiction because Nunez’s petition presents a recurring legal issue of statewide importance: whether in deciding if a party may withdraw a matter deemed admitted under Rule 36(b), the superior court must consider if withdrawal would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and would prejudice the requesting party in defending the action on its merits. Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 12(b)(4). Resolving this issue also materially advances the efficient management of the case. Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 12(b)(7). We grant relief and vacate the court’s orders denying Nunez’s motion because it didn’t apply two requirements in the plain text of Rule 36(b), instead deciding Nunez’s motion to withdraw based on a “good cause” gloss not found in Rule 36(b)’s text or any Arizona Supreme Court case. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Nunez and Valente Litigate Over the House in Which They Lived and Their Broken Engagement. ¶3 For a time, Nunez and Valente were engaged to be married and lived together. After they broke up, Nunez sued Valente, seeking to partition a house they owned jointly. Valente responded with a nine-count counterclaim, including claims for breach of promise to marry (Count I), 2  NUNEZ v. VALENTE Opinion of the Court unjust enrichment (Count IV), declaratory relief (Count VII), and quiet title (Count VIII). Valente alleged the house was hers, and that Nunez promised to marry her, tricking her into letting him live in her house, but breached his promise, and intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress on her. Valente’s allegations, if proved, could bar Nunez from the equitable remedy of partition and would establish her sole title to the home, allowing her to prevail on her declaratory relief and quiet title claims. ¶4 The court then entered a scheduling order on February 18, 2025. The scheduling order required both parties to provide their Rule 26.1 disclosures by February 3 (mor