827 N.W.2d 843
S.D.2013Background
- AgFirst sued Diamond C Dairy for 57 loads of dairy mix and related feed delivered Jan–Sept 2010; Diamond C admitted some shipments but contested others.
- Diamond C urged a Ft. Dodge, Iowa defense (shipping reports) and a scheduling defense claiming insufficient storage capacity to accept certain loads on the claimed schedule.
- Before trial, Diamond C sought to withdraw admissions; the court allowed withdrawal of admissions related to scheduling but denied Ft. Dodge admissions.
- Trial was bifurcated with a second day to address storage-capacity evidence; Ty Hill testified telephonically but was required to appear in person.
- The circuit court ultimately found sufficient storage space and awarded AgFirst $84,863.26 plus interest and $1,970.72 in fees/expenses for the second day; Diamond C appealed on three grounds.
- This Court reverses in part, remands related to the Ft. Dodge withdrawal issue, and addresses the adequacy of findings and fee-order concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the findings adequate to support storage-space ruling? | AgFirst contends findings are sufficient and include Hill's calculations adopted by the court. | Diamond C argues the court failed to provide adequate, specific calculations and error in independence of storage-space computation. | Findings are sufficient for review; no clear error. |
| Was the attorney’s fees/expenses award for the second trial day proper? | AgFirst argues fees were authorized by statute or contract. | Diamond C contends the record lacks itemization and necessity for the second-day costs; no basis shown. | Remanded for itemized request, necessity showing, and proper findings. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal of Ft. Dodge admissions? | AgFirst argues the Ft. Dodge admissions denial was appropriate and preserves trial integrity. | Diamond C asserts two-part test was misapplied and withdrawal should be allowed to reach merits. | Court abused its discretion; withdraw admissions should be permitted; remand for new trial on Ft. Dodge issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 (S.D. 2003) (findings of fact required; review for clear error)
- DT-Trak Consulting, Inc. v. Prue, 2012 S.D. 39 (S.D. 2012) (findings must permit meaningful review)
- March v. Thursby, 2011 S.D. 73 (S.D. 2011) (findings must be sufficiently specific)
- Arrowhead Ridge I, LLC v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., 2011 S.D. 38 (S.D. 2011) (attorney’s fees/expenses require showing of necessity)
- Tank v. Munstedt, 504 N.W.2d 866 (S.D. 1993) (two-part test for withdrawal/amendment of admissions; prejudice inquiry)
- Gutting v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 710 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1983) (prejudice analysis in withdrawal of admissions)
- In re S.D. Microsoft Antitrust Litig., 2005 S.D. 113 (S.D. 2005) (need for itemized fee requests; reasonableness of expenses)
- Brooks v. Milbank Ins. Co., 2000 S.D. 16 (S.D. 2000) (reasonableness of trial-continuance costs; affidavits evidence)
- Oleson v. Snyder, 277 N.W.2d 729 (S.D. 1979) (costs associated with trial continuance may be recoverable)
- Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 S.D. 103 (S.D. 2004) (need for findings of fact and conclusions of law in fee rulings)