Opinion ID: 1443842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of NCI's Motions to Amend Complaint and for Continuance of Trial[6]

Text: In November of 1993, NCI sought to amend its complaint. It reworded its seventh cause of action to indicate that it was intended to state a defective specifications claim rather than simply repeat the sixth cause of action's claim of differing site conditions. Also, NCI attempted for the first time to assert four separate claims directly against Hill. To this point, NCI had made all of its claims against the City, which then sought indemnity from Hill; there had been no direct NCI claims against Hill. Finally, NCI sought a continuance. The superior court denied all of these motions. NCI argues that the superior court's denial of leave to amend was based on a failure to apply Civil Rule 15(a), which provides that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. The superior court stated that it finds no manifest injustice in denying Neal leave to amend its complaint at this late date. Therefore the court finds that justice does not require amendment. Neal has had ample opportunity to pursue in a timely fashion all of the claims listed in the proposed Third Amended Complaint.... [T]here is no manifest injustice in failing to permit amendment on the eve of trial, after five years of preparation and motions. NCI claims that the superior court's application of the manifest injustice standard was an error. The superior court indicated in its order denying Neal's motion to amend his complaint that its reason for applying the manifest injustice standard was Civil Rule 16(e). While Civil Rule 15(a) directs that leave be freely granted by the court when justice so requires, Civil Rule 16(e) states that pretrial orders following a final pretrial conference shall control unless modified by the judge to prevent manifest injustice. NCI argues that the superior court was mistaken in its belief that a Civil Rule 16(e) pretrial order had been issued, and, therefore, that the superior court's application of Civil Rule 16(e) instead of Civil Rule 15 was an error. However, it is unnecessary to determine whether the superior court had issued a Civil Rule 16(e) pretrial order. If there was no Civil Rule 16(e) pretrial order, and the superior court therefore erred in applying the manifest injustice standard, that error was harmless. Even under the freely given when justice so requires standard, it is difficult to see why NCI should be allowed to amend its complaint again. After five years of litigation, including two amendments to its complaints, and after losing a major summary judgment motion, NCI requested leave to rework its causes of action and to bring four claims against Hill for the first time. Justice does not require that such leave be granted. The superior court carefully and accurately analyzed the amendments which NCI was offering to its complaint. All of its findings would sustain a denial of leave to amend under either the Rule 15(a) or the Rule 16(e) standard. Similarly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the superior court, at that late point in the litigation, to deny a continuance to NCI.