316 P.3d 1177
Wyo.2014Background
- Motzko subcontracted with A&D for Sage Creek Road; first subcontract paid $97,917 and work completed by Aug 31, 2010.
- A&D performed additional time-and-materials work; Motzko demobilized equipment and stored it on A&D’s property.
- Motzko invoiced $245,098.03; Motzko paid $173,754.07 with Final Payment notation; later paid $20,000; remaining balance $71,343.96.
- Motzko filed suit in 2012; attempted removal to federal court; remanded to state court; Motzko filed counterclaim alleging overpayment and storage conversion.
- District court found Motzko’s counterclaim compulsory and untimely under Rule 13; accepted Motzko’s federal-file argument as unsupported; dismissed counterclaim; after bench trial, A&D obtained judgment on its claims; Motzko appealed.
- Court awarded sanctions under W.R.A.P. 10.05 to A&D for Motzko’s deficient appellate briefing and lack of cogent argument; opinion subject to revision before publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Motzko’s counterclaim | Motzko argues timely filing in federal court should transfer; appeals to Rule 13 timing | Counterclaim was compulsory and not timely filed in state court; no leave to amend | Yes; counterclaim barred and properly dismissed |
| Whether Motzko’s counterclaim was moot given the bench-trial ruling on A&D’s claims | Counterclaim addressed defenses to A&D’s claims; may affect outcome | Even if pleaded, admissions and trial findings render moot | Yes; moot because admissions and trial findings resolved the issues raised by the counterclaim |
| Whether A&D is entitled to attorney fees and costs under W.R.A.P. 10.05 | ( Motzko ) argues no basis for sanctions | Opposition brief lacked cogent argument and proper record citations | Sanctions warranted; appellate costs and possible attorney-fee application to follow |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane Co. v. Busch Dev., Inc., 662 P.2d 419 (Wy. 1983) (compulsory counterclaims must be timely raised or barred)
- Moore v. State, 313 P.3d 505 (Wy. 2013) (refusing to consider unsupported arguments; evidentiary rules applied)
- Sands v. Brown, 301 P.3d 128 (Wy. 2013) (case cites rule-based dismissal for noncompliance)
- White v. Shane Edeburn Constr., LLC, 285 P.3d 949 (Wy. 2012) (justiciability; mootness doctrine applied)
- Christian Coalition of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2011) (mootness and live controversy considerations)