BOHANNON v. McDonald

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that defects in a property they purchased in or about June 2021 resulted from negligence by defendants allegedly involved in designing and constructing the property. Their operative complaint asserted one negligence claim. It alleged, among other things, that the defendants failed to properly design the property and deviated from plans and specifications.

On July 10, 2025, the court precluded the plaintiffs from introducing evidence of willful misconduct at trial. The court also granted Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to bifurcate the trial, meaning the statute-of-repose issue would be tried separately from liability and damages. The court based that ruling on the plaintiffs’ failure to allege facts about willful misconduct and their concession that bifurcation was appropriate if the evidence could not be presented. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ oral request to file a fifth amended complaint because they waited until the eve of trial despite earlier notice and opportunities to plead willful misconduct as an exception to the statute of repose.

The plaintiffs and Landset Engineers, Inc. and Dowdy Construction Inc. agreed to a bench trial based on stipulated facts concerning the statute-of-repose issue. The court concluded that the statute of repose barred the plaintiffs’ claims against those defendants and entered judgment in their favor. After a similar bench trial involving George Michael Macaluso and Macaluso Electric, Inc., the court also concluded that the statute of repose barred the plaintiffs’ claim against those defendants and entered judgment in their favor.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including excusable neglect. They argued that their failure to seek permission to amend earlier resulted from counsel’s decision and counsel’s understanding of the governing law and prior court orders.

The court denied this request. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, it explained that parties are generally bound by and accountable for the deliberate actions of themselves and their chosen counsel, including an innocent or careless attorney mistake. The court held that counsel’s failure to seek leave to amend earlier, even if based on an innocent legal mistake, did not provide a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).

Motion for a New Trial or to Alter or Amend the Judgment

The plaintiffs also moved for a new trial under Rule 59(a)(1)(B), or alternatively to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). These remedies can apply when a judgment rests on a manifest error of law, meaning a clear legal error.

The court denied this request as well. It referred to its July 10 order and held that the plaintiffs were properly denied leave to amend and that their willful-misconduct evidence was properly excluded. The operative complaint alleged only the substantial-completion date as a basis for avoiding the statute of repose and contained no facts about willful misconduct. The plaintiffs had numerous earlier opportunities to seek leave to amend and had not explained why they failed to do so after the supporting facts allegedly became available around November 2024.

The court also held that it did not matter whether the plaintiffs’ expert testimony concerning willful misconduct might also support their negligence claim. The court excluded the evidence because the complaint did not allege willful misconduct. The plaintiffs failed to show good cause under Rule 16 for amending after the court’s deadline, so the court concluded that it had properly barred the fifth amended complaint and the new willful-misconduct evidence.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for relief from final judgment and denied their motion for a new trial. It also denied the alternative request to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).