quotation marks omitted). 13 . See Aurora Credit Servs., Inc. v. Liberty W. Dev., Inc., 970 P.2d 1273, 1281-82 (Utah 1998). 14 . See id. at 1282 ("Where no reason is assigned as grounds for the denial of a motion to amend a pleading, this Court has no guide whereby it can determine if a trial court has abused its discretion. This Court is then left in a dilemma wherein reversible error becomes a possibility if not a probability even though the trial court's reasoning might have been a proper exercise of its judicial discretion." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 15 . Id. at 1281. 16 . Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). 17 . Id. 18 . -See Aurora Credit Servs., 970 P.2d at 1282. 19 . See, e.g., Holmes Dev., LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38, ¶ 31, 48 P.3d 895 (<HOLDING>). 20 . - See Aurora Credit Servs., 970 P.2d at
holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity holding that a plaintiff cannot amend the complaint  in a memorandum in opposition to a motion to dismiss  because such amendment fails to satisfy utahs pleading requirements citations omitted holding that plaintiff cannot introduce new allegations or new facts in opposition to a motion to dismiss holding that the complaint did not satisfy the notice pleading requirements of federal rule of civil procedure 8a because the complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment