Opinion ID: 2640630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Propriety of the grant of partial summary judgment dismissing Mr. Askvig's and Mr. Lewis' respective counterclaims

Text: [¶ 15] The bank moved for partial summary judgment against Mr. Askvig and Mr. Lewis, asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the respective counterclaims of both men. The district court granted the bank's motion and dismissed the respective counterclaims. On appeal, Mr. Askvig and Mr. Lewis present separate and distinct arguments as to why the grant of partial summary judgment was improper as to them individually. [¶ 16] Mr. Askvig argues, as he did below, that the bank could not challenge the merits of his counterclaim because default had been entered against the bank thereupon. Procedurally, the bank did not timely answer Mr. Askvig's counterclaim. Upon motion, the clerk of court entered a default against the bank. As far as the record shows, although no judgment of default was entered, the preliminary entry of default was in effect until the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the bank. Mr. Askvig essentially asserts that the bank's motion for partial summary judgment against him should have been stricken because the entry of default barred the bank from disputing any issues except those relating to damages under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Except for the bald statement declaring such a prohibition, Mr. Askvig presents no cogent argument or citation to pertinent legal authority in support of his argument. We therefore decline to address his estoppel argument further. Cathcart v. Meyer, 2004 WY 49, ¶ 20, 88 P.3d 1050, 1060 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 17] In contrast to Mr. Askvig, Mr. Lewis filed a response to the bank's motion for partial summary judgment requesting the district court either deny the motion or permit him to amend his counterclaim. On appeal, Mr. Lewis does not directly challenge the propriety of the district court's dismissal of his counterclaim. Rather, Mr. Lewis' only sustained appellate argument is that his motion for leave to amend his counterclaim should have been granted. [¶ 18] 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. Johnson v. Sikorski, 2004 WY 137, ¶ 12, 100 P.3d 420, 423 (Wyo.2004); Breazeale v. Radich, 500 P.2d 74 (Wyo.1972). An abuse of discretion must be shown by Mr. Lewis by clear evidence. Ekberg, v. Sharp, 2003 WY 123, ¶ 9, 76 P.3d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.2003). Mr. Lewis presents no record evidence to this Court which identifies the reasons the district court invoked in denying his motion to amend. This Court therefore has no way of scrutinizing the propriety of the district court's actions. In the absence of a showing that would assist us in this regard, the denial of the motion to amend by the district court must be affirmed. Dynan v. Rocky Mountain Federal Sav. and Loan, 792 P.2d 631, 640 (Wyo.1990).