Idaho Civil Motion Practice: A Complete Guide

Idaho civil procedure is governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.), which apply in all District Courts throughout the state. While Idaho's rules mirror many federal procedural concepts, important differences exist in pleading standards, motion deadlines, and evidentiary requirements. Understanding these distinctions is critical for effective motion practice in Idaho courts.

Motion Standards and Pleading Requirements

Idaho's Pleading Standard: Notice Pleading with Fact Specificity

Idaho follows a notice pleading standard under I.R.C.P. 8(a), which requires only a "short and plain statement" of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. However, Idaho courts have moved toward requiring greater specificity than pure federal notice pleading in certain contexts, particularly in cases involving professional negligence, fraud, and other specialized claims.

Under I.R.C.P. 9(b), allegations of fraud must be stated with particularity, including the circumstances constituting fraud with specificity regarding who, what, when, where, and how. Similarly, professional negligence claims require sufficient factual allegations to give notice of the specific breach alleged.

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

I.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This motion is the Idaho equivalent of the federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion and operates under substantially similar principles.

Standards for Granting

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and must view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that no reasonable interpretation of the pleadings would entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Idaho courts apply the plausibility standard established in Twombly and Iqbal federal precedent, requiring allegations that suggest a "plausible" claim for relief, not merely a "possible" one. Conclusory statements and legal conclusions are not entitled to the presumption of truth.

Timing and Procedure

Common Pitfalls

Motion for Summary Judgment

I.R.C.P. Rule 56 governs summary judgment motions. Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Burdens and Standards

The moving party initially bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a material fact dispute. Once met, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce specific facts establishing a genuine dispute of material fact. Idaho courts strictly construe doubts against the moving party and will not make credibility determinations on summary judgment.

Idaho applies the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil cases. Summary judgment is proper only when reasonable minds cannot differ on the legal conclusions drawn from undisputed facts.

Timing and Deadlines

Partial Summary Judgment

Idaho permits partial summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56(d). A movant may seek summary judgment on certain claims or certain elements of claims while leaving others for trial. This is particularly useful in multi-claim litigation where some legal questions are straightforward.

Affidavit Requirements

All factual assertions in summary judgment must be supported by affidavits, declarations under penalty of perjury (I.R.C.P. 11), or properly authenticated documents. Conclusory affidavits without evidentiary support are disregarded.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

I.R.C.P. Rule 12(c) permits a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed but before trial. This motion is rarely successful because it applies a stringent standard: it can be granted only when, accepting all well-pleaded allegations and reasonable inferences as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The motion is appropriate only in cases involving pure legal questions with no factual disputes. It differs from summary judgment because it relies exclusively on the pleadings and does not permit consideration of extrinsic evidence.

Motion to Compel Discovery

I.R.C.P. Rule 37 governs discovery disputes and motions to compel. Before filing a motion to compel, the moving party must demonstrate a good faith effort to obtain the information without court involvement.

Meet-and-Confer Requirements

Idaho requires a certification of good faith effort before filing any motion to compel. The moving party should:

Filing Procedure and Format

The motion must include:

Fee-Shifting and Sanctions

Under I.R.C.P. 37(a)(5), if a motion to compel is granted, the court must order the party failing to make disclosure to pay the moving party's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees—unless the movant failed to attempt good faith conference, the responding party's position was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award unjust.

Conversely, if the motion is denied, sanctions may be imposed against the movant for filing a frivolous motion.

Motion in Limine

While not explicitly codified in I.R.C.P., motions in limine are recognized practice tools to exclude evidence before trial. They are governed by the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) and local court rules.

Timing and Filing

Common Subjects

Prior Bad Acts (I.R.E. 404(b)): Evidence of a person's character or prior conduct is generally inadmissible to show that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. However, such evidence is admissible for other purposes (motive, opportunity, knowledge, absence of mistake). A motion in limine should specify the improper inference the opponent might make.

Insurance Coverage (I.R.E. 411): Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is inadmissible to prove negligence, wrongdoing, or punitive damages. This is commonly the subject of in limine motions.

Settlement Offers and Negotiations (I.R.E. 408): Offers to settle disputes and conduct during settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability, negligence, or wrongdoing. A motion in limine should prevent any reference to settlement discussions.

Propensity Evidence: Character evidence is generally inadmissible under I.R.E. 404(a), except in limited circumstances. In limine motions commonly address attempts to introduce evidence of plaintiff's prior criminal conduct or defendant's history of similar misconduct.

Motion for Default Judgment

I.R.C.P. Rule 55 governs default and default judgments. When a defendant fails to file an answer or responsive pleading within the required time (typically 20 days under I.R.C.P. 12(a)), the defendant is in default.

Procedure for Obtaining Default Judgment

1. Entry of Default: The clerk of court may enter default upon request by the plaintiff if the defendant is in default under Rule 55(a). This does not constitute a judgment—merely a notation of default.

2. Motion for Default Judgment: The plaintiff then files a motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b). This motion must include:
- A declaration establishing that the defendant is properly in default
- Proof that proper service was made
- An affidavit or declaration establishing the plaintiff's damages (unless damages are liquidated or can be determined from the pleadings)

3. Notice to Defendant: The defendant must be given at least 3 days' notice of the motion for default judgment (I.R.C.P. 55(b)(2)), except in cases involving unlawful detainer or where the amount is uncontroverted.

Proving Damages After Default

Even upon default, the plaintiff must prove the amount of damages through affidavit, declaration, or testimony—the defendant's default does not establish liability for unspecified damages. The court will not enter judgment for a greater amount than requested in the complaint.

In cases where the claim is for a sum certain or is capable of being made certain by calculation, the court may enter judgment without a hearing. Otherwise, a hearing must be held.

Motion to Amend Complaint

I.R.C.P. Rule 15 governs amendments to pleadings. Idaho is generally liberal in permitting amendments.

Standards for Leave to Amend

As a matter of right, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served, or within 20 days after service of a responsive pleading (I.R.C.P. 15(a)).

With leave of court, amendments may be made at any time. The court should grant leave "freely" when justice so requires, under I.R.C.P. 15(a). Idaho courts examine:

Relation Back Doctrine

Under I.R.C.P. 15(c), amendments may relate back to the date of the original complaint if:

1. The new claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original claim, AND
2. Either:
- The new defendant received notice within 90 days of filing the complaint (such that the defendant will not be prejudiced by the relation back), OR
- The new defendant knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against the defendant but for a mistake of identity

Relation back is frequently used to add new defendants or correct naming errors without running afoul of statutes of limitations.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction

I.R.C.P. Rule 65 establishes the requirements for temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions. Both require the movant to demonstrate four elements.

Required Elements

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The movant must show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the underlying claim. This does not require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but the claim must not be frivolous or clearly without foundation.

2. Irreparable Harm: The movant must demonstrate that harm cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages. Irreparable harm typically includes loss of business goodwill, trade secrets, privacy, or other non-monetary interests.

3. Balance of the Equities: The court must weigh the harm to the movant from denial of relief against the harm to the opposing party from granting relief. The movant's harm must outweigh the opposing party's harm.

4. Public Interest: In many cases, particularly those affecting public entities or constitutional issues, the court will consider whether granting relief serves the public interest. When applicable, this factor must favor the movant.

Procedural Requirements

Temporary Restraining Orders (I.R.C.P. 65(b)):

Preliminary Injunctions (I.R.C.P. 65(a)):

Motion Requirements and Declarations

Motions for TRO/preliminary injunction must include:

Motion to Change Venue / Transfer

I.R.C.P. Rule 40 and Idaho Code § 5-404 et seq. govern venue and venue changes. A defendant may move to change venue based on:

Proper Venue

Under Idaho Code § 5-404, a civil action must be brought in the county where:

Motion to Transfer or Change Venue

The defendant must file a motion to transfer venue before or with the answer, or the motion is typically waived (though courts have discretion to consider late motions for good cause). The motion should set forth specific facts explaining why the current venue is improper or why transfer is inconvenient.

The movant bears the burden of establishing grounds for transfer. The court has discretion in balancing inconvenience factors and may deny the motion even if venue is technically improper if the inconvenience is minimal.

Motion to Consolidate or Sever

I.R.C.P. Rule 42 permits the court to consolidate related actions or separate (sever) claims or parties within a single action.

Consolidation (I.R.C.P. 42(a))

The court may consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact for trial or other proceedings. Either party may file a motion to consolidate, and the court has discretion to grant or deny based on judicial economy, judicial efficiency, and fairness to the parties.

Severance (I.R.C.P. 42(b))

The court may order separate trials or proceedings of any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim. Severance is appropriate when:

The movant must demonstrate specific prejudice from joint proceedings, not mere inconvenience or party preference.

Motion for Continuance

I.R.C.P. Rule 6(b) permits the court to extend time periods, and I.R.C.P. Rule 40 addresses continuances of trials. Motions for continuance should be filed as soon as the necessity becomes apparent, with supporting declarations explaining:

Courts disfavor continuances close to trial and require compelling reasons. A continuance may be granted upon consent of all parties and the court, or upon a showing of "good cause."

Post-Trial Motions

Post-trial motions in Idaho must strictly comply with I.R.C.P. Rule 59 and deadlines or they will be waived.

Motion for New Trial (I.R.C.P. 59)

Standard: A new trial may be granted for any reason for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in Idaho. Grounds include: