Heit v. Livingston
2:23-cv-00507
| D. Idaho | Jun 30, 2025Background
- The Heits and Livingstons own neighboring properties in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, governed by a 2012 joint use agreement for a shared tram.
- The joint tram arrangement included shared costs for maintenance, operation, and replacement, but disagreements arose in 2023 when the tram needed to be replaced.
- After a failed attempt to resolve the dispute at a dinner, the Livingstons proceeded to build their own tram with a contractor, leading to the present lawsuit.
- The Heits initially filed suit for breach of contract and injunctive relief to stop the Livingstons’ construction workers from trespassing on their property.
- The Heits sought to amend the complaint to add claims for punitive damages under Idaho law and civil trespass after the pleading deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add punitive damages | Livingstons' conduct during discovery was oppressive, etc. | Conduct was not intentional, at most careless | Denied; no evidence of required bad act/state of mind |
| Add civil trespass claim | Claim was pled or sufficiently noticed in original complaint | Amendment after deadline is unwarranted | Denied; no showing of diligence under Rule 16 |
| Pleading stage for punitive dam. | Motion satisfies Idaho Code § 6-1604 | Insufficient facts for punitive damages | Denied; lack of substantial, admissible evidence |
| Amendment timing (Rule 16/15) | No prejudice to defendants | Deadline passed; no diligence shown | Denied; focus is on movant's diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Blast Properties, Inc., 551 P.3d 706 (Idaho 2024) (court may permit punitive damages amendment if there's a reasonable probability of proof at trial)
- Todd v. Sullivan Const. LLC, 191 P.3d 196 (Idaho 2008) (punitive damages require both a bad act and bad state of mind)
- Seiniger Law Office, P.A. v. North Pac. Ins. Co., 178 P.3d 606 (Idaho 2008) (bad act for punitive damages means extreme deviation from standards of conduct)
- Myers v. Workmen's Auto. Ins. Co., 95 P.3d 977 (Idaho 2004) (punitive damages require oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct)
- Thurston Enters. Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 435 P.3d 489 (Idaho 2019) (punitive damages available in contract cases only in extraordinary circumstances)