Boise Mode, LLC v. Donahoe Pace & Partners Ltd.
294 P.3d 1111
Idaho2013Background
- Boise Mode, LLC leased Suite 350 to DPP from Dec 1, 2006 to May 31, 2010; rent and covenants governed by the lease.
- Timothy Pace executed a personal guarantee guaranteeing DPP’s obligations under the lease.
- DPP complained about construction effects in 2008; DPP stopped paying rent in Dec 2008 and vacated Nov 2009.
- Boise Mode sued for breach of contract and Pace for breach of the guarantee; DPP counterclaimed for constructive eviction, breach, and bad-faith covenant claims.
- Discovery disputes and motions for summary judgment occurred; district court initially granted summary judgment, reversed, then reinstated it; final judgment awarded Boise Mode damages and fees; DPP appealed and the district court’s rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 56(f) continuance was properly denied | DPP: denial was abuse of discretion; needed more discovery. | Boise Mode: DPP failed to show need or relevance of further discovery. | No abuse; court did not err in denying continuance. |
| Whether district court could hear Boise Mode’s Rule 11(a)(2)(B) reconsideration | DPP: Rule 11(a)(2)(B) bars reconsideration after final judgment. | Boise Mode: order was interlocutory, so reconsideration permissible. | District court properly allowed reconsideration of the interlocutory order. |
| Whether summary judgment on Boise Mode’s contract claims and DPP’s counterclaims was proper | Boise Mode: DPP breached by withholding rent; contract unambiguously forbids deductions. | DPP: construction issues and potential defenses could preclude summary judgment. | Summary judgment proper for Boise Mode on both its claims and DPP’s counterclaims. |
| Whether exculpatory/quiet enjoyment provisions limited DPP’s remedies | Boise Mode: contract language unambiguously precludes rent withholding; Pace guarantees payment. | DPP: conduct disputes could toll or excuse performance. | Exculpatory provisions interpreted strictly; language clear on no rent withholding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eby v. State, 148 Idaho 731 (Idaho 2010) (interpretation of discretionary review in Rule 56 decisions)
- Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp., 141 Idaho 233 (Idaho 2005) (Rule 56(f) and discovery necessity on continuance denial)
- Taylor v. AIA Services Corp., 151 Idaho 552 (Idaho 2011) (pretrial discovery sufficiency and continuance rationale)
- Elliott v. Darwin Neibaur Farms, 138 Idaho 774 (Idaho 2003) (interlocutory order review under Rule 11(a)(2)(B))
- Sammis v. Magnetek Inc., 130 Idaho 342 (Idaho 1997) (reconsideration and vacatur of interlocutory orders under Rule 11(a)(2)(B))