Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly allowed McDunns to amend their complaint and add a new claim; (2) whether the district court properly denied Arnold’s motion in limine to prohibit reference to the testimony and evidence presented in the justice court; and (3) whether Arnold was denied her right to a trial de novo.
Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; and (3) no.
Affirmed…
Issue: (1) Whether Bradford’s expert was properly allowed; (2) whether Bradford’s expert failed to supplement his disclosure; (3) whether the motion for a new trial should have been granted.
Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; and (3) no.
Affirmed…
Issue: (1) Whether the district court slightly abused its discretion in denying O’Connells’ motion to vacate the default judgment, and (2) whether the law firm was properly awarded attorneys’ fees.
Short Answer: (1) No, as it was untimely under the 2009 Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) yes, as the contract allowed them.
Affirmed…