LM Insurance Corporation v. Roof Crafters, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 24 Motion for Joinder; granting 27 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/30/15. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
LM INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. CV415-116
ROOF CRAFTERS, INC. a/k/a
ROOFCRAFTERS, INC. and
DAVID OWNES,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court are defendants' motion to amend their answers
(doe. 23), motion to join third-party defendants (doe. 24),' and plaintiff
LM Insurance Corp.'s motion to amend its complaint. Doe. 27.
The deadline to amend pleadings expired on September 4, 2015
(doe. 21), so granting the parties' amendment motions requires a
modification of the Court's scheduling order (doe. 21). Hence, they must
demonstrate good cause for the modifications. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)

1

Defendants move to amend and join new parties to assert claims against a second
company (J.C.B. Roofing) and its principals (Thomas Krejci and Bobby Myers), all of
whom defendants allege were inextricably intertwined with Roof Crafters and thus
liable for any damages stemming from plaintiffs claims. See doc. 24 at 2-5.

("A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's
consent.").
Both have done so. Defense counsel Kristen Goodman wasn't
"associated" with this case until September 18, 2015 -- two weeks after
the September 4, 2015 deadline -- and only thereafter did she and cocounsel Tom Mahoney determine that defendants' answers needed
alteration. See doe. 23 at 1. Plaintiff, meanwhile, only learned through
discovery obtained after the deadline that a successor corporation to
defendant Roof Crafters exists that it believes is a "mere continuation"
of Roof Crafters and thus "a proper Defendant." Doe. 27 at 1-2.
Particularly since plaintiff does not oppose defendants' motion, see doe.
25 at 1, both motions to amend (does. 23 & 27) are GRANTED. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to docket does. 23-1 and 23-2 as defendants David
Owens' and Roof Crafter's amended answers respectively, and doe. 27-1
as plaintiffs amended complaint.
Plaintiff, meanwhile, does not oppose defendants' motion to
implead third-party defendants. Doe. 26 at 1. Because the Court
discerns no unreasonable delay in defendants' request, undue
complication from the proposed impleader, or prejudice to any existing

2

party,' defendants' motion for joinder (doe. 24) also is GRANTED. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to (1) docket doe. 24-1 as defendants' complaint
against third-party defendants J.C.B. Roofing, LLC; J.C.B. Roofing-IT,
Inc.; Thomas Krejci; and Bobby Myers, and (2) amend the docket caption
accordingly.
As both parties recognize, impleading additional parties and
amending pleadings less than a month before discovery is scheduled to
end necessitates a new discovery schedule. So, the parties shall confer

2

"[W] hether a third-party defendant may be impleaded under Rule 14 [is] a
question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court." DeRubeis v. Witten
Techs., Inc., 244 F.R.D. 676, 682 (N.D. Ga. 2007).
In exercising its discretion the court should endeavor to effectuate the purpose
of Rule 14, which means that impleader is to be allowed if it will avoid circuity
of action and eliminate duplication of suits based on closely related matters. As
a result, a timely application for impleader should be granted except when it
will delay or disadvantage the existing action or the third-party claim
obviously lacks merit. Of course the court must be sensitive to the possibility
of prejudice to the original plaintiff or the third-party defendant that may
result from permitting the assertion of the third-party claim. Similarly, the
court's discretion may be exercised only when the claim is within the scope of
impleader established by Rule 14(a). But if the claim is a proper third-party
action and will not prejudice the other parties or unduly complicate the
litigation, there is no reason to deny an application under Rule 14(a).
6 WRIGHT & MILLER, FED. PRAC. & PROC. § 1443 (3d ed. 2015).

3

and jointly submit a new proposed scheduling order to the Court within
14 days of the date this Order is served.'
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of October, 2015.

UNTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Plaintiff, although it does not object to defendants' motions, argues that
defendants may not seek apportionment should they ultimately be found liable in
tort. See doe. 26 at 2. That, however, is a matter for another day and does not affect
the Court's analysis of either the motions to amend or the motion to join additional
parties. Too, plaintiff gives notice that it may eventually seek leave to join the new
third-party defendants as defendants should discovery reveal any "unique and direct
liability to Plaintiff." So be it. The Court will consider that motion if and when it's
filed.
4