has discretion to follow rule 15(a)'s dictate that leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, where one of the reasons the nonmoving party provides for denying the motion to amend is that the statute of limitations bars the claim, the analysis is not the weighing of equitable factors under rule 15(a), but rather a legal determination regarding whether the amendment would be futile. See Sulzen v. Williams, 1999 UT App 76, 1 7, 977 P.2d 497 (characterizing the appeal from denial of a motion to amend as "challenging the trial court's apparent conclusion that the statute of limitations had run and that their effort to amend their complaint was thus futile"); see also Jensen v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2008 UT 51,- [ 139, 82 P.3d 1076 (<HOLDING>). T31 Thus, a correctness standard applies to a
recognizing that a court may deny a motion to amend as futile if the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss quotations and citation omitted holding that district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding that the finding of less than a half pound of marijuana alone was not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss holding that a change in the theory of recovery and one prior amendment is not sufficient to deny a motion to amend the complaint where no evidence of bad faith existed