Background - In August 2014 a massive landslide in North Salt Lake damaged multiple properties, including Paul and Jeanette Evans’ home and a local Tennis Club. - Multiple related lawsuits and counterclaims were consolidated; the litigation involved many parties and counsel and had staggered fact and expert discovery deadlines (fact discovery extended to late Dec. 2016). - Evans and Kern River sought leave to amend their pleadings to add new negligence and other claims after depositions taken between Sept.–Dec. 2016 allegedly revealed facts supporting those claims. - Evans first filed a motion to amend in June 2016 but did not submit it for decision until December 2016 due to ongoing mediation; Kern River filed motions in Aug. and Dec. 2016 (one granted in Oct.). - The district court denied Evans’s June motion (as untimely) and denied the late-December motions from Evans, Kern River, and the Tennis Club, citing advanced procedural posture and closed fact discovery; the court identified only the closing of fact discovery as prejudice. - On interlocutory appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by denying the motions to amend and remanded for further proceedings (allowing for brief tailored discovery extensions if needed). ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---|---|---| | Whether district court abused discretion in denying motions to amend under Utah R. Civ. P. 15 | Motions were timely (filed at end of fact discovery after relevant facts were learned); amendments justified by late-discovered deposition evidence; any prejudice is remediable by targeted discovery extensions | Motions were untimely and would prejudice defendants because fact discovery had closed and the case was in an advanced stage | Court reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion — timeliness, prejudice, and justification did not support refusal to amend; district court should allow amendments and may grant brief, targeted discovery extensions | ### Key Cases Cited Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC, 221 P.3d 256 (Utah 2009) (amendments should be denied when untimely, unjustified, and prejudicial) Aurora Credit Servs., Inc. v. Liberty West Dev., Inc., 970 P.2d 1273 (Utah 1998) (trial court should primarily consider whether amendment would cause unavoidable prejudice) Timm v. Dewsnup, 851 P.2d 1178 (Utah 1993) (no prejudice if court provides ample time to answer new claims) Gillman v. Hansen, 486 P.2d 1045 (Utah 1971) (denial of leave to amend erroneous when case not set for trial and minimal additional discovery required) Nunez v. Albo, 53 P.3d 2 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (denial reversed where no trial date, expert discovery not begun, and discovery ongoing) Kelly v. Hard Money Funding, Inc., 87 P.3d 734 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (factors for amendment: timeliness, prejudice, justification; simple prejudice insufficient) DeLuca v. Winer Indus., Inc., 857 F. Supp. 606 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (granting amendment on day fact discovery closed where targeted extension avoided undue prejudice) Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 243 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2010) (amendment may be denied for dilatory motive or bad faith) * Outsource Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v. Bishop, 344 P.3d 1167 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (appellate review defers to trial court factual findings)