Narrative Opinion Summary
The trial court's final order dismissing the appellant's counterclaim and cross-claim without leave to amend is affirmed. The appellant, now representing herself, was previously represented by counsel when her initial and reply briefs were submitted. The initial brief included a proposed "Second Amended Counterclaim" and "Second Amended Third Party Complaint," but these were stricken as they were not properly presented to the trial court, lacking a formal motion for leave to file or a transcript indicating a request from counsel for such an opportunity. A review of the record shows no error in the trial court's assessment of the pleadings it had or any abuse of discretion in denying further amendments. The decision is supported by the concurrence of DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Counterclaims and Cross-claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's counterclaim and cross-claim without granting leave to amend, as the submissions were procedurally improper.
Reasoning: The trial court's final order dismissing the appellant's counterclaim and cross-claim without leave to amend is affirmed.
Judicial Concurrencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to affirm the trial court's order was unanimously supported by the concurrence of the presiding judges.
Reasoning: The decision is supported by the concurrence of DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ.
Self-Representation and Procedural Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant, who began representing herself after initial submissions by counsel, failed to properly present amended pleadings to the trial court, lacking requisite formal motions or supporting transcripts.
Reasoning: The initial brief included a proposed 'Second Amended Counterclaim' and 'Second Amended Third Party Complaint,' but these were stricken as they were not properly presented to the trial court, lacking a formal motion for leave to file or a transcript indicating a request from counsel for such an opportunity.
Standard of Review for Denial of Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate review found no error or abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying further amendments to the pleadings.
Reasoning: A review of the record shows no error in the trial court's assessment of the pleadings it had or any abuse of discretion in denying further amendments.