Opinion ID: 2634894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Foxley's Motion to Amend Complaint

Text: [¶ 32] The decision to allow amendment to pleadings is vested within the sound discretion of the district court and subject to reversal on appeal only for an abuse of that discretion. Askvig v. Wells Fargo Bank Wyoming, N.A., 2005 WY 138, ¶ 18, 121 P.3d 783, 788 (Wyo.2005); Johnson v. Sikorski, 2004 WY 137, ¶ 12, 100 P.3d 420, 423 (Wyo.2004); Breazeale v. Radich, 500 P.2d 74 (Wyo.1972). Leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given when justice so requires. W.R.C.P. 15(a). In determining whether to allow amendment, this Court has suggested the following test be followed: If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reasonsuch as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.the leave sought should, as the rules require, be `freely given.' Beaudoin v. Taylor, 492 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1972) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)). See Armstrong v. Hrabal, 2004 WY 39, ¶ 11, 87 P.3d 1226, 1230-31 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 33] The district court denied Foxley's motion to amend, finding, among other grounds, the amendment would be unduly prejudicial to the Ellises. Procedurally, the initial complaint was filed November 27, 2006. The initial complaint was amended for the first time on January 2, 2007. Extensive discovery ensued. On June 25, 2007, the Ellises filed their motion for summary judgment. The motion to file a second amended complaint was filed thereafter on July 30, 2007. Foxley proposed two new causes of action in this amendment. Under these particular procedural circumstances, we cannot say it was unreasonable for the district court to determine that at some point in time the Defendants should not be required to hit a moving target.