Jones v. Select Oilfield Services, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Cox Operating, LLC's 38 Motion for Leave to File Cross-Claim Against US Specialty Insurance Co. is GRANTED. On or before 10/8/2021, Cox may refile its proposed pleading or file a revised cross-claim against US Specialty Insurance Co. asserting Cox's status as an additional insured. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/1/2021. (pp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES MICHAEL JONES,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 20-1177

SELECT OILFIELD
SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Cox Operating, LLC’s (“Cox”) Motion for Leave to
File Cross-Claim Against US Specialty Insurance Co.1 Third-Party Defendant US Specialty
Insurance Co. (“USSIC”) has filed an opposition.2 Cox has filed a reply.3
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The scheduling order required cross-claims to be filed by February 8, 2021.4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that once a scheduling order has been
entered, it “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”5 Four
factors are relevant to good cause: “(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.”6
The Court finds there is good cause for allowing the amendment. Despite Cox’s
best efforts in investigating Defendant Select Oilfield Services, LLC’s (“Select”) marine

R. Doc. 38.
R. Doc. 40.
3 R. Doc. 43.
4 R. Doc. 37.
5 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16(b).
6 Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting S&W Enters., L.L.C. v.
SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003)).
1

2

1

general liability underwriter for months before this motion was filed, USSIC only recently
has been identified as Select’s marine general liability underwriter and added as a party
to this lawsuit. Allowing Cox’s claim against USSIC in this action will efficiently resolve
all claims arising out of the Plaintiff’s alleged accident in one place.7 Permitting Cox to file
this claim will not prejudice USSIC because USSIC has been on notice of Cox’s claim for
months, as it is identical to Cox’s cross-claim for defense, indemnity, and insurance
coverage against Select, USSIC’s insured. Moreover, the trial in this case has been
continued to June 20, 2022, and there is ample time for discovery and no risk of delaying
this proceeding because of Cox’s new claim.
USSIC has provided no reason in its opposition it will be prejudiced by the
amendment. Instead, in its opposition, USSIC improperly focuses its attention on the
merits of Cox’s proposed cross-claim. Whether or not Cox can prevail on the merits of its
proposed claim is not relevant to the relief requested by Cox—permission to file its crossclaim against USSIC. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) in order to sustain a
cross-claim, the defendant/cross-claimant is only required to show that the co-party
“may” be liable to the defendant/cross-claimant.8
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Cox Operating, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File
Cross-Claim Against US Specialty Insurance Co. is GRANTED. On or before October

Courts have found such efficiency to be good cause. See, e.g., TMJ Grp., LLC v. IMCMV Holdings, Inc.,
No. CV 17-4677, 2018 WL 1182434, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 7, 2018); Hume v. Consol. Grain & Barge, Inc., No.
CV 15-0935, 2016 WL 430432, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 4, 2016); Soule v. RSC Equip. Rental, Inc., No. CIV.A.
11-2022, 2012 WL 2579319, at *2 (E.D. La. July 3, 2012).
8 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 13(g).
7

2

8, 2021, Cox may refile its proposed pleading9 or file a revised cross-claim against US
Specialty Insurance Co. asserting Cox’s status as an additional insured.10
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of October, 2021.

_______ _____________ __________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

R. Doc. 38-4.
R. Doc. 41-1 at 4.

10

3