Darby v. Swenson Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed summary judgment for Swenson Inc. in a dispute involving a motor home, North Dakota's Lemon Law, and warranty claims. The court held that allowing Darby to amend his complaint would have been futile because the written sales documents conspicuously disclaimed warranties and Darby presented no evidence supporting his proposed claims. The court also affirmed dismissal with prejudice.

Holdings

1. A proposed amendment is futile when the added claim would not survive a motion for summary judgment. When amendment is sought after a summary-judgment motion has been filed, the proposed claim must be theoretically viable and solidly grounded in the record, with allegations supported by substantial evidence.
2. Summary judgment was proper on Darby's proposed express- and implied-warranty claims because the undisputed record showed that Swenson conspicuously and unambiguously disclaimed all warranties and limited Darby's remedies to manufacturers' warranties, while Darby presented no evidence creating a genuine issue regarding the disclaimer.
3. The Lemon Law's exclusive-remedy provision did not bar Darby from seeking relief against Swenson under an alternative cause of action because the Lemon Law did not provide Darby a remedy against Swenson in the first place.
4. Darby did not preserve an unconscionability issue because he failed to plead it, failed to adequately brief it in the district court, and presented no evidence of procedural or substantive unconscionability.
5. Dismissal with prejudice was proper because Darby failed to adequately brief the issue on appeal and, in any event, all of his claims had been resolved on the existing record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Darby leave to amend his complaint in response to Swenson's summary-judgment motion.
2. Whether Darby's proposed express- and implied-warranty claims would have survived summary judgment or were futile.
3. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Darby's complaint with prejudice.
4. Whether Darby's reference to unconscionability in his summary-judgment response preserved an unconscionability claim for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed