Kentucky Laborers District Council et al v. Capitol Drilling & Sawing of Kentucky, Inc.

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File a Counterclaim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay on 12/16/2015. cc: Counsel(JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-382-CHL

KENTUCKY LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.
CAPITOL DRILLING & SAWING OF KENTUCKY, INC.,

Defendant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendant Capitol Drilling & Sawing of Kentucky, Inc.’s Motion for
Leave to File a Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint (DN 43). Through DN 44 (initial
objection) and DN 49 (supplemental objection), Plaintiffs Kentucky Laborers District Council,
Kentucky Laborers District Counsel Health and Welfare Fund, Kentucky Laborers District
Council Training Fund, and Laborers National Pension Fund (“Plaintiffs”) oppose this motion.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion will be granted.
I. Background
Plaintiffs are an unincorporated labor organization and the organization’s related benefit
plans. Plaintiffs and Defendants were previously signatories to several labor agreements, but
those agreements were not renewed and expired on June 30, 2015. On April 4, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed their complaint, alleging breach of contract (DN 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that
Defendant had failed to pay to the benefit plans all required fringe benefits.
Discovery commenced and trial was initially scheduled to begin September 21, 2015.
Defendant asserts that while deposing a union representative on July 1, 2015, Defendant
obtained information that it believes gives rise to claims for failure to negotiate in good faith
under the National Labor Relations Act and improper interference with business relationships

(DN 43-1, 4-5). In order to effectuate these claims, Defendant has filed the instant Motion for
Leave to File a Counterclaim. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant knew or should have known of the
facts purportedly giving rise to the proposed Counterclaim prior to the aforementioned
deposition. The September 2015 trial has since been remanded (DN 48) and is now scheduled
for June 30, 2016 (DN 50).
II. Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 governs counterclaims. Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 13(e), “The
court may permit a party to file a supplemental pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured or
was acquired by the party after serving an earlier pleading.” This subsection of Rule 13 applies
to Defendant’s counterclaim if it did not learn of the facts that allegedly give rise to its
counterclaim until July 1, 2015, well after serving its answer (DN 5) to Plaintiffs’ complaint.
The Court is not in a position to state definitively when Defendant learned the facts that
purportedly give rise to the proposed Counterclaim. Trial will not begin for over another six
months. Therefore, Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice while discovery occurs on Defendant’s
counterclaim during this time. This tips the balance in favor of allowing the proposed
Counterclaim.
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Counterclaim is HEREBY
GRANTED.

December 16, 2015

Colin Lindsay, MagistrateJudge
United States District Court
cc: Counsel of record