Opinion ID: 1172264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Mother asserts that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because Child was initially not properly served pursuant to W.R.C.P. 3. She contends that, as a result, Child was not made a party within the five-year statutory period provided by W.S. 14-2-105(a)(ii) to determine the existence of a father/child relationship where no presumed father exists. Father, however, amended his petition to alter his position from a putative father to a presumed father, taking the action outside the scope of the statute of limitations. See W.S. 14-2-104(b). Mother argues the amendments were improper and thus the statute of limitations expired before the court attained personal jurisdiction over Child. Father amended his petition in response to Mother's motion to dismiss. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. W.R.C.P. 15. Mother maintains that her motion to dismiss is a responsive pleading and, therefore, Father could not amend without leave of the court. We disagree. In addressing this issue, we find guidance in federal precedent inasmuch as our rules of civil procedure parallel the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509, 517 (Wyo. 1995). Federal courts have uniformly held that motions to dismiss are not responsive pleadings: Rule [15(a)] must be read in conjunction with Rule 7(a), F.R.Civ.P., which indicates that an answer is a responsive pleading to the complaint.    [T]he law in this Circuit and elsewhere is clear: filing a motion to dismiss    will not prevent a party from subsequently amending without leave of court. Gipson v. Township of Bass River, 82 F.R.D. 122, 124 (D.C.N.J.1979); see also Adams v. Campbell County Sch. Dist., 483 F.2d 1351, 1353 (10th Cir.1973); Move Org. v. City of Philadelphia, 89 F.R.D. 521, 523 (E.D.Pa. 1981); Kelly v. Delaware River Joint Comm'n, 187 F.2d 93, 94 (3rd Cir.1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 812, 72 S.Ct. 25, 96 L.Ed. 614 (1951). Thus, Father was free to amend once as a matter of course since Mother had not filed her answer. As with the original petition, however, it does not appear from the record that this first amendment was properly served on Child. Father then requested and was granted leave of the court to amend a second time. With regard to the court's decision to allow Father leave to file a second amended petition, the law in this jurisdiction is well settled: [T]he decision to allow amendment, when required by justice, is within the discretion of the district court and that decision will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. The guideline on review is whether or not the adverse party was prejudiced by allowance of the amendment. Hernandez v. Gilveli, 626 P.2d 74, 77 (Wyo. 1981) (emphasis added). We hold the court acted within its discretion in allowing Father to amend; Father had a legitimate claim as a presumptive father, and W.S. 14-2-104(b) gives any interested party the right to bring an action at any time for the purpose of determining the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship presumed under W.S. 14-2-102(a)(iv). Had the court dismissed the action based upon the statute of limitations, Father could simply have refiled as a presumed father. Thus, allowing Father to amend had no real prejudicial effect on Mother. Mother additionally challenges the district court's subject matter jurisdiction regarding visitation and support. Upon entry of summary judgment establishing paternity, Mother timely filed an appeal. Mother now avers that since there was a pending appeal contesting paternity, the district court could not proceed to determine visitation and support. District courts are entitled to the presumption of regularity when exercising their general jurisdiction. First Wyoming Bank, N.A. Cheyenne v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 628 P.2d 1355, 1362 (Wyo.1981). We have previously held that during the pendency of an appeal, the district court has the right and power to enforce its decrees and orders and to protect the parties as to any rights they acquired in the district court proceedings. Moore v. Moore, 809 P.2d 255, 258 (Wyo.1991). Cf. Coones v. F.D.I.C., 848 P.2d 783, 796 n. 18 (Wyo.1993) (district court retains jurisdiction over portion of litigation not affected by summary judgment); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 895 P.2d 441, 444 (Wyo.1995) (district court retained jurisdiction to hear request for relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b)). Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.01(b) provides: The appellate court shall acquire jurisdiction over the matters appealed when the case is docketed. In all cases, the trial court retains jurisdiction over all matters and proceedings not the subject of the appeal   . Mother provides no authority for her contention that the jurisdictional nature of her challenge affects the application of W.R.A.P. 6.01(b). It is an oft-stated rule that we need not consider issues that are unsupported by proper citation to legal authority. See, e.g., Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo.1995); Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America, 864 P.2d 1018, 1028 (Wyo.1993). Accordingly, we hold the district court retained jurisdiction under W.R.A.P. 6.01(b) to decide issues of custody, support and visitation.