364 P.3d 1193
Idaho2016Background
- Fagen, Inc. sued Lava Beds Wind Park, Exergy Development, XRG, and Tabor seeking breach of contract damages, mechanic’s lien foreclosure, and quantum meruit recovery for work on a wind park; claims against Tabor were later dismissed by stipulation.
- Fagen moved for summary judgment seeking $848,183.42 against Lava Beds and Exergy Development for breach of contract; it supported the motion with multiple affidavits and payment applications.
- Defendants opposed with two affidavits (conclusory assertions disputing damages and work quality) and moved to continue the summary-judgment hearing under I.R.C.P. 56(f) to take depositions; they also filed a separate summary-judgment motion that was mooted when Fagen withdrew certain claims.
- The district court denied the continuance, concluding defendants had not shown diligence or specified what additional discovery was essential and that the affidavits were conclusory; it then granted Fagen’s summary judgment.
- Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and later served deposition excerpts and an affidavit from a related case, but the district court refused to consider those late-served evidentiary documents and denied reconsideration; defendants appealed.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) continuance, the reconsideration motion was timely (service = making), but the late evidentiary material was properly disregarded; Fagen awarded appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a continuance under I.R.C.P. 56(f) to obtain depositions/evidence | Fagen argued defendants had not met Rule 56(f) standards and summary judgment was supported by admissible evidence | Defendants argued they needed critical depositions and further discovery to oppose damages and affirmative defenses | No abuse of discretion: defendants lacked diligence, affidavits were conclusory, and they failed to show what additional discovery would preclude summary judgment |
| Whether the motion for reconsideration was timely under I.R.C.P. 11(a)(2)(B) | Fagen argued timing rules required strict compliance and defendant’s supporting evidence was untimely | Defendants argued their reconsideration was timely because the motion was served within 14 days (filed next day) | Motion was timely because the rule distinguishes making (service) from filing; service within 14 days is sufficient |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to consider evidentiary material served with the oral argument (after the 14-day window) | Fagen argued the court properly refused belated evidence and could require affidavits to be served with the motion | Defendants argued new evidence from a related case should be considered on reconsideration | Court properly disregarded the late-served documents; evidentiary support must be served with the motion or timely moved for extension |
| Entitlement to appellate attorney fees | Fagen asserted prevailing-party contractual and statutory fees for a commercial transaction | Defendants opposed | Fagen entitled to appellate fees under Idaho Code and contract (prevailing party in commercial transaction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin Bldg. Supply Co. v. Hymas, 157 Idaho 632, 339 P.3d 357 (discussing Rule 56(f) continuance requirements and timeliness of evidentiary submissions)
- Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp., 141 Idaho 233, 108 P.3d 380 (party seeking continuance must show what discovery would reveal and how it would avoid summary judgment)
- Boise Mode, LLC v. Donahoe Pace & Partners Ltd., 154 Idaho 99, 294 P.3d 1111 (trial court may consider lack of diligence in discovery when ruling on continuance)
- Puckett v. Verska, 144 Idaho 161, 158 P.3d 937 (interlocutory orders and reconsideration practice)
- Agrisource, Inc. v. Johnson, 156 Idaho 903, 332 P.3d 815 (timing for post-judgment reconsideration motions)
- Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 281 P.3d 103 (summary-judgment standard applies to reconsideration; court must consider new admissible evidence)
- Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 291 P.3d 1000 (court must determine admissibility of new evidence on reconsideration)
- Marek v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 50, 278 P.3d 920 (new admissible evidence must create genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment)
- Hilliard v. Murphy Land Co., LLC, 158 Idaho 737, 351 P.3d 1195 (prevailing party in a commercial transaction entitled to attorney fees)