French v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 30

ORDER AND REASONS denying 18 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/27/2018. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRYCE FRENCH

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-5769

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.

SECTION “R” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Murphy Wallbed Systems, Inc.’s motion
to strike plaintiff Bryce French’s amended complaint.1 For the following
reasons, the Court denies the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from an injury plaintiff allegedly sustained assembling

a wall bed.2 Plaintiff alleges that in January 2016, he purchased a wall bed
from defendant Breda, Inc. 3

On or about February 16, 2016, plaintiff

allegedly injured his hand while attempting to assemble the bed. 4 Plaintiff

1
2
3
4

R. Doc. 18.
R. Doc. 11.
Id. at 3 ¶ 6.
Id. at 4 ¶ 11.

alleges that the bed was unreasonably dangerous in contravention of the
Louisiana Products Liability Act. 5
On February 9, 2017, plaintiff filed a petition for damages in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans against Breda and defendant Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, which allegedly provided liability insurance to
Breda.6 Breda and Liberty Mutual removed the action to this Court on June
13, 2017, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 7

On

November 16, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order requiring all
amended pleadings to be filed by December 18, 2017. 8 On April 24, 2018,
plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint adding Murphy and ABC
Insurance Company as defendants, which the Court granted on April 25,
2018.9 Plaintiff alleges that Murphy designed and manufactured many of the
component parts for the wall bed, including the hardware, mechanism arms,

5
6
7
8
9

Id. ¶ 12.
R. Doc. 1-9.
R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 8.
R. Doc. 9; R. Doc. 10.
2

and bed frame.10 Murphy now moves to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint
as untimely. 11 Plaintiff opposes the motion. 12

II.

DISCUSSION
Courts in this circuit apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) when

leave to amend a pleading requires modification of the scheduling order.
S&W Enters., LLC v. S. Trust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535-36 (5th
Cir. 2003). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good
cause standard requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the
extension.” S&W Enters., LLC, 315 F.3d at 535 (internal citations omitted).
Courts specifically consider “(1) the explanation for the failure to timely move
for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential
prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.” Id. at 536.
The Court finds that good cause exists for plaintiff’s untimely amended
complaint. First, plaintiff has explained that he did not confirm Murphy’s

10
11
12

R. Doc. 11 at 3 ¶ 8.
R. Doc. 18.
R. Doc. 21.
3

identity and connection to his cause of action until after the deadline for
filing amended pleadings had passed. Plaintiff asserts that on December 12,
2017, counsel for Breda “informally” advised him that Murphy may have
manufactured the product’s component parts. 13 Plaintiff states that Breda
then definitively confirmed Murphy’s role on March 19, 2018, during written
discovery. 14 Plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint 36 days after
Breda’s confirmation. 15

Because plaintiff has provided a satisfactory

explanation for why his amended complaint is untimely, the first factor in
S&W Enterprises weighs in plaintiff’s favor. See Boyd v. Boeing Co., No. 1525, 2016 WL 760687, at *1, 3 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 2016) (finding good cause to
modify scheduling order when plaintiff learned the identities of potential
defendants during the course of discovery).
Second, plaintiff’s amended complaint is important in order to ensure
the presence in this lawsuit of all parties that may bear responsibility for his
injuries. See In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 071873, 2012 WL 1665901, at *2 (E.D. La. May 11, 2012) (in a products liability
suit, finding it critically important that the plaintiffs be allowed to amend
their complaint to add as a defendant the manufacturer of the allegedly

13
14
15

R. Doc. 21 at 2.
Id.
R. Doc. 9.
4

defective product). The second factor in S&W Enterprises therefore also
weighs in plaintiff’s favor.
Finally, there are over two months before Murphy’s deadline to submit
expert disclosures, and over three months until the discovery deadline.16
Trial is over four months away, on January 14, 2018. Plaintiff’s amended
pleading does not introduce new causes of action or theories of liability, and
this action involves a single plaintiff and four defendants, two of which are
liability insurers. Under these circumstances, Murphy is not significantly
prejudiced by plaintiff’s untimely amended complaint. Cf. Harney v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 16-1998, 2018 WL 1182407, at *5 (E.D. La. Mar.
7, 2018) (finding prejudice to the defendant when the plaintiffs sought to add
new causes of action to their complaint after the deadlines for discovery and
dispositive motions had already passed). The third and fourth factors in
S&W Enterprises thus also weigh in favor of plaintiff.
The Court therefore finds that plaintiff has established good cause for
his untimely amended complaint.17

R. Doc. 8.
Plaintiff incorrectly cited the more lenient standard under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) in his initial unopposed motion for leave to file
his amended complaint. R. Doc. 9. He did not attempt to show that his
amended complaint satisfied Rule 16(b). See id. But in his opposition to the
instant motion, plaintiff has provided information that meets the criteria set
by Rule 16(b). See R. Doc. 21.
5
16
17

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Murphy’s motion is DENIED.

27th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of August, 2018.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6