Opinion ID: 2583948
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Did the district court err in denying the appellants' motion for leave to file an amended complaint to allege negligent misrepresentation?

Text: [¶ 49] The Complaint in this case was filed on February 22, 2001. The jury trial began on August 19, 2002. Less than two months before trial, and more than sixteen months after the Complaint was filed, the appellants filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Both the motion and the proposed amended complaint attached to it raised a second claim against Dr. Hrabal characterized as negligent misrepresentation. The focus of this new claim was Dr. Hrabal's alleged failure to disclose to her employer, EMP, a prior lawsuit against her for failure properly to diagnose a progressive bacterial infection. [¶ 50] Although the appellants referred in both their district court motion and their appellate brief to negligent misrepresentation, and although they cited in both courts to Husman, Inc. v. Triton Coal Co., 809 P.2d 796 (Wyo. 1991), which is a negligent misrepresentation case, their specific reference to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 (1977) suggests that their proposed claim was actually based in nondisclosure. [9] See Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 43, 75 P.3d 640, 656-57 (Wyo. 2003). To date, Wyoming has not adopted the tort of nondisclosure, although neither has the tort directly been rejected. See Lee v. LPP Mortg. Ltd., 2003 WY 92, ¶ 33, 74 P.3d 152, 163-64 (Wyo. 2003). [¶ 51] In a legal memorandum filed in the district court in support of their motion, the appellants shrugged off both the distinction between the two torts and the fact that this Court had never adopted nondisclosure with the following comments: Defendant Hrabal agrees that, if faced with the question, the Supreme Court of Wyoming would adopt the Restatement of Torts (Second) § 551. In any event, Dr. Hrabal undertook a duty to supply truthful and accurate facts as part of the employment screening process and as part of her application for temporary and permanent UMC medical privileges. Throughout their appellate brief, the appellants continue to blur the distinction between the torts by referring alternatively to Dr. Hrabal's alleged misconduct as a failure to disclose or a misrepresentation. Furthermore, the appellants presented no legal or factual argument suggesting why this Court should adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 551. [¶ 52] The appellees presented before the district court and in this Court several contentions in opposition to the appellants' motion. First, citing Beaudoin, 492 P.2d at 970, they argued that the proposed amendment was futile because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, inasmuch as EMP is the party to whom any duty of disclosure would be owed. Further, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 551, cmt. f, the appellees contend that Dr. Hrabal owed no such duty to EMP, because their employee-employer relationship was not a fiduciary relationship as contemplated by Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 551. [10] Finally, the appellees argued that the prior lawsuit was not a fact basic to the transaction and that, therefore, any failure to disclose that lawsuit's existence could not form the basis for a cause of action under Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 551. [11] [¶ 53] The appellees' second counter-argument is that the motion for leave to amend was untimely. Noting that the appellants' counsel had known of the prior lawsuit at least since October 29, 2001, noting that additional discovery would have been required if the motion was granted, and noting that no experts had been designated to testify about the matter, the appellees argued that adding a new cause of action would have inject[ed] a host of new factual and legal issues into this litigation at this late date. [¶ 54] Next, the appellees argued that the motion to amend was made for an improper purpose in that it was made to enable the appellants to suggest to the jury that Dr. Hrabal is a bad doctor who previously breached the standard of care so she must have done so again, and to attempt to establish the standard of care in the present case through incompetent expert testimony. This argument, of course, complemented the appellees' position in regard to their own motion in limine. [¶ 55] The Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint was filed on August 8, 2002, only a few days before trial. The order indicates that the motion was heard on July 2, 2002. As with the appellees' motion in limine, the record contains neither a hearing transcript nor a decision letter, and the order, itself, contains no justification for its conclusion. Thus, we are left again to surmise as to the reasons for the district court's ruling. [¶ 56] This court must affirm the district court's action on appeal if it is sustainable on any legal ground appearing in the record . . .. Heilig v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n, 2003 WY 27, ¶ 8, 64 P.3d 734, 737 (Wyo. 2003). This rule holds true even where the district court has not articulated on the record the reasons for its action: This court must affirm the district court's action on appeal if the judgment is sustainable on any legal ground appearing in the record. Deisch v. Jay, 790 P.2d 1273, 1278 (Wyo. 1990). Although the orders denying the motions to intervene in these cases do not set out the grounds the district court specifically relied upon, we conclude sufficient bases exist in the records to warrant denial of the motions to intervene. Masinter v. Markstein, 2002 WY 64, ¶ 8, 45 P.3d 237, 241 (Wyo. 2002). [¶ 57] We will affirm the district court's denial of the appellants' motion for leave to amend their complaint. The appellants have not adequately distinguished between the torts of negligent misrepresentation and nondisclosure, they have not adequately advocated for the adoption of the latter tort, and they have not adequately supported their contention that, under either tort, the alleged tortfeasor owes a duty to a third person not party to the transaction. Furthermore, the record supports denial of the motion on the ground that it was untimely.