the trial court erred in denying PennyMac’s motion for relief from technical admissions and in involuntarily dismissing the action. We .vacate the order of involuntary dismissal, reverse and remand the cause for entry of an order granting PennyMac’s motion for relief from technical admissions and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . PennyMac further contends that the issue of whether a party has standing is a legal conclusion, and is therefore not a proper subject for a request for admission. Given our disposition on other grounds, we do not reach this issue, but observe that PennyMac may well be correct in this regard. See Davis v. Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 909 So,2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (rev’d on other grounds, Williams v. Davis, 974 So.2d 1052 (Fla.2007)) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d
holding trial courts general charge concerning requests for admissions was a correct statement of law holding that requests for admissions seeking purely legal conclusions are inappropriate and the failure to respond to such a request may not be the basis for a summaiy judgment holding that facts deemed admitted as to one defendant because of his failure to respond to the plaintiffs request for admissions are not binding on a codefendant holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates