Heeb et al v. Whipple Inc. et al, No. 1:2019cv00190 - Document 42 (D. Idaho 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 41 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RANDAL HEEB, an individual; and SHIRLEY ANN MERCHANT, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-00190-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, v. WHIPPLE, INC., VIRTUAL DESIGN CONCEPTS, LLC, and JASON WHIPPLE, an individual, Defendants. WHIPPLE, INC., Counterclaimants, v. RANDAL HEEB, an individual; and SHIRLEY ANN MERCHANT, an individual, Counterdefendants. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint. Dkt. 41. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Plaintiffs seek to include a claim for punitive damages against individual Defendant Jason Whipple (“Whipple”). Defendants have not opposed the Motion. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the Motion. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the implied warranty of workmanship, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and a violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a residential construction dispute where they allege Defendants did not construct the residence subject to the plans and specifications in the construction agreement or in a timely manner. Plaintiffs’ fraud claim is specifically against Whipple. See Dkt. 1 at 19-21. They claim he “contrived and executed a scheme to overcharge [Plaintiffs] by inflating his invoices above the amount subcontractors were actually paid and pocketing the difference” and made representations to Plaintiffs that were knowingly false. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs further claim that they entered into the construction agreement based on Whipple’s false statements. Id. at 21. On August 25, 2020, this Court held summary judgment proceedings and MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 determined that there exists triable issues of fact as to Plaintiffs’ fraud claim against Whipple. See Dkt. 40 at 45-46. Based on the Court’s decision at summary judgment, Plaintiffs now seek to amend their Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against Whipple. ANALYSIS Under Idaho Code § 6-1604(2), “[i]n all civil actions in which punitive damages are permitted, no claim for damages shall be filed containing a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.” However, a party may amend the pleadings to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages by way of pretrial motion after a hearing before the court. Id. “The court shall allow the motion to amend the pleadings if, after weighing the evidence presented, the court concludes that, the moving party has established. . .a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Id. It is well established that punitive damages may be awarded when fraud has been proven. See Walston v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 923 P.2d 456, 466 (Idaho 1996). During summary judgment proceedings, this Court determined that issues of fact exist sufficient to submit the fraud claim to a jury and denied summary judgment as to the fraud claim. See Dkt. 40 at 45-46. Therefore, Plaintiffs have established a “reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial” sufficient to support a MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3 claim of punitive damages. If the jury finds Whipple liable for fraud, punitive damages are explicitly available under § 6-1604(2). Accordingly, the Motion will be granted. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 41) is GRANTED. DATED: May 4, 2021 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
