Carter v. McClure et al

Filing 61

ORDER, denying 52 First MOTION for Order to rule on appeal filed by Phillip Carter, Jeffco Leasing. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 12/18/14. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MIRANDA COSGROVE and
CHRISTINA COSGROVE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RODNEY D. MCCLURE et al.,
Defendants.

No. 13-cv-580-DRH-PMF

PHILLIP CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
RODNEY D. MCCLURE et al.,
Defendants.

No. 13-cv-547-DRH-PMF

RODNEY D. MCCLURE
Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIP L. CARTER et al.,
Defendants.

No. 13-cv-717-DRH-PMF

LELDON COFFEY and CARRIE COFFEY
Plaintiffs,
v.
RODNEY D. MCCLURE, et al.
Defendants.

No. 13-cv-819-DRH-PMF
Page 1 of 7

Memorandum and Order
HERNDON, District Judge:
I.

Introduction

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ appeal of magistrate decision
(Doc. 110). Defendants Jeffco Leasing Co., Inc. and Phillip Carter (herein after
“defendants”) seek to appeal the April 23, 2014 and May 6, 2014 orders issued by
Magistrate Judge Frazier in Cosgrove et al v. McClure et al. denying their motions
for leave to file a third-party claim (Doc. 106) and extend filing deadlines (Doc.
109). Naturally, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’ appeal (Doc. 143).
Having considered the arguments, the Court DENIES defendants’ appeal of the
orders (Doc. 110).
II.

Background

The case arises out of a vehicular collision, which occurred on or about
August 11, 2011, between a coach bus and overturned tractor and semi-trailer on
Interstate 70 near Mile Post 72 in Fayette County, Illinois. While driving the coach
bus westbound on Interstate 70, Rodney McClure collided with the tractor and
semi-trailer owned by Jeffco Leasing Co., injuring plaintiffs Miranda and
Christina Cosgrove, who were passengers on the bus, and McClure. Defendant
Pioneer Coach also incurred damage to its Prevost bus in an amount alleged to be
in excess of $200,000. The tractor trailer was under the control of defendant
Phillip Carter. While it laid overturned on Interstate 70, Leldon Coffey, a passerby
Page 2 of 7

on the roadway, stopped to assist Carter. Coffey was injured when the bus
collided with the tractor trailer. In all, four lawsuits were filed resulting from the
collision.
On April 29, 2013, the first of the four lawsuits, Carter v. McClure et al.,
was filed in Illinois Circuit Court. Plaintiff Phillip Carter brought suit against
Rodney McClure and Pioneer Coach, Inc. in Madison County, Illinois Circuit
Court alleging personal injuries resulting from the aforementioned collision. See
Case No. 13-L-650. Defendants timely removed the action to this Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, and Rule 81(c) of the FEDERAL RULES

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE on June 11, 2013 (No.13-cv-547-JPG-PMF at Doc. 2).
Following removal, three additional complaints were filed stemming from
the abovementioned collision, including the case at issue, Cosgrove et al. v.

McClure et al. See 13-cv-580-DRH-PMF at Doc. 2; 13-cv-717-DRH-PMF at Doc. 2;
13-cv-819-DRH-PMF at Doc. 2. The cases were later transferred to Judge Gilbert
and consolidated for discovery purposes in order to avoid overlapping and
redundant discovery.
Defendants filed two motions involving possible third-party claims following
the detection of Miranda Rolls, Inc.’s business relationship with Pioneer Coach
and Four Seasons. In their first motion, defendants sought leave to file a thirdparty complaint against Miranda Rolls, Inc. for contribution (Doc. 104). The
deadline for filing third-party claims was set for December 13, 2013. However,
defendant’s motion was filed on April 24, 2014, over four months after the

Page 3 of 7

deadline passed (Doc. 106). Magistrate Judge Frazier denied defendant’s motion,
citing defendants’ failure to show good cause to justify a four month deadline
extension pursuant to FEDERAL RULE

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 16(b)(4) (Doc. 106). He

went further stating that “parties received ample time to identify and join parties
for contribution/indemnity,” given their prior notice of Miranda Rolls, Inc.’s
involvement in December of 2013 (Id.).
Following Judge Frazier’s order, defendant’s filed a motion to extend the
deadline for filing third-party claims and amend the pleadings on April 24, 2014
(Doc 107). Defendants also filed a joint motion to amend the case management
order (Doc. 108). Specifically, defendants sought the opportunity to bring thirdparty claims against Miranda Rolls, Inc. for contribution and indemnity and to
amend their pleadings to add additional affirmative defenses. Judge Frazier
denied defendant’s motion to extend deadlines under the same rationale as
discussed in his previous order— defendants’ failure to show good cause to justify
the four month lapse under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (Doc. 109).
Defendants appealed the orders arguing an inability to acquire necessary facts
prior to the filing deadline for amended pleadings due to the written discovery
deadlines (Doc.110). Plaintiff’s responded alleging that defendant’s had actual
knowledge of the entity Miranda Rolls, Inc. by, if not before, December of 2013.
According to plaintiffs, defendants obtained copies of the contract involving
Miranda Rolls, Inc., around December of 2013.

Page 4 of 7

Upon the transfers to the undersigned judge, each was stayed pending
mediation. Following an unsuccessful attempt to mediate, the Court lifted the
stays and now addresses defendants’ appeal of magistrate decision and the
motions to rule on the appeal filed in each of the related cases (Doc. 110). See

also Carter v. McClure, 13-cv-00547-DRH-PMF at Doc. 52; McClure v. Carter, 13cv-00717-DRH-PMF at Doc. 36; Coffey v. McClure, 13-cv-00819-DRH-PMF at Doc.
98.
III.

Legal Standard

Under Local Rule 73.1(a) of the Southern District of Illinois and FEDERAL
RULE

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 72(a), a district judge may modify or set aside a

magistrate judge’s decision only if the decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A decision is clearly erroneous
when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer,
470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
In applying this “clear error” standard, a district judge may overturn a
decision “only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co. Ltd., 126 F.3d
926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). District Courts are given broad discretion on matters
related to discovery. Weeks, 126 F.3d at 943. If there are two permissible views,
the reviewing court will not overturn the decision solely because it would have
Page 5 of 7

chosen the other. The clear error standard requires more than mere
disagreement.
Accordingly, the Court will affirm Judge Frazier’s decision unless his
factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); S.D. Ill. Local Rule 73.1(a). The
Court finds that defendants have not established that Judge Frazier's orders were
clearly erroneous or contrary to the law in this case.
IV.

Analysis

The standard set forth in Alito v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir.
2011), dictates that when “making a Rule 16(b) good-cause determination, the
primary consideration for district courts is the diligence of the party seeking
amendment.” Judge Frazier emphasized defendants’ failure to meet that
standard, specifically with regard to the four month delay from learning of the
Miranda Rolls, Inc.’s involvement to the filing of their motions. Irrespective of
missing the discovery deadline, defendants were unable to show good cause for
failing to diligently file their motion to bring a third-party claim.
Judge Frazier set forth this “good cause” standard and referenced defendant’s
failure satisfy its terms. He referenced Alito and the court’s discussion of party
diligence as the key factor to determine good cause. 651 F.3d 715, 720. In this
case, defendants failed to establish their diligence. Judge Frazier noted the
previous extensions granted, including a deferment of the presumptive trial date
nine months due to case complexity (Doc. 48).
Page 6 of 7

Defendants acknowledge in their appeal that they learned of the contract
between Defendant Four Seasons, Inc. & Miranda Rolls, Inc. on December 23,
2013 (Doc.110). However, the parties failed to request leave to bring a third-party
complaint against Miranda Rolls, Inc. until April 18, 2014 (Doc. 104). Defendant’s
attempted to show good cause to explain the four month delay by claiming they
“did not yet have a good faith basis” for bringing a third-party action at the time
they learned of the contract (Doc. 110). However, defendants not only received
notice of Miranda Rolls, Inc. from Four Season’s 26(a)(1) disclosures, but were
provided with copies of the contract between Four Seasons and Miranda Rolls,
Inc., in December of 2013, yet failed to take action (Doc. 115).
Overall, defendants failed to show any clear error or how Judge Frazier’s
decision was contrary to law. Good cause had not been shown in this case to
warrant an extension, and the Court refrains from modifying Judge Frazier’s
order to reflect that finding. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
V.

Conclusion

The Court, being fully advised of the premises, finds Magistrate Judge
Frazier's decision was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous. Accordingly,
the Court AFFIRMS his rulings and DENIES the instant appeal (Doc. 110).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 18th day of December, 2014.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2014.12.18
12:50:01 -06'00'

District Judge
United States District Court
Page 7 of 7