De Oliveira v. VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, L.L.C.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-01754
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In De Oliveira v. VHS Harlingen Hospital, Judge Broderick denied De Oliveira’s requests for admissions because discovery had not begun and defendants had not been served.
Daniel De Oliveira’s request for admissions was denied, so the named defendants were not ordered by this ruling to respond to those requests.
What happened
In De Oliveira v. VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, L.L.C., Daniel De Oliveira, representing himself, asked the defendants to admit or deny statements about an alleged arbitration agreement, related litigation, and jurisdiction.
De Oliveira asked the court to order VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, Valley Baptist Medical Center-Harlingen, and Tenet Healthcare to respond under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requests included statements about alleged contract breaches, arbitration, time limits, and alleged misconduct in other proceedings.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the application. The court explained that the case had not reached discovery, which the court identified as the proper stage for serving requests for admissions, and that the defendants had not yet been served with the initial pleadings.
The detailed version
- De Oliveira v. VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, L.L.C. · No. 1:25-cv-01754
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Daniel De Oliveira, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application titled a motion for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He sought an order requiring VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, L.L.C., doing business as Valley Baptist Medical Center-Harlingen, and Tenet Healthcare to answer requests for admissions.
Requests
The requests concerned an alleged relocation agreement and arbitration clause, the effect of prior litigation on arbitration rights, alleged contract breaches, the timing of arbitration, alleged fraud on courts, and the consolidation of state-court cases. De Oliveira asked the defendants to admit or deny each statement and to provide responses within the period required by Rule 36.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the application. The court stated that the case had not proceeded to discovery, which it described as the proper stage for serving requests for admissions. The court also stated that the defendants had not yet been served with the initial pleadings. The order did not decide whether the alleged arbitration clause existed, whether arbitration was required or time-barred, whether jurisdiction existed, or whether any party committed fraud. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to De Oliveira.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.