St. Charles-Guillot Investment, LLC et al v. One Source Roofing, Inc. et al

Filing 88

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs One Source Roofing, Inc.; Jasper Contractors, Inc.; and Roofclaim.com, LLC's 85 Motion for Leave to File Amended Third-Party Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' proposed Amended Third-Party Complaint shall be filed in the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eva J. Dossier on 5/9/2024. (pp).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ST. CHARLES-GUILLOT
INVESTMENT, LLC, ET AL.

*
*
*
VERSUS
*
*
ONE SOURCE ROOFING, INC., ET *
AL.
*
*
*********************************** *

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00030
SECTION: “O”(3)
JUDGE BRANDON S. LONG
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
EVA J. DOSSIER

ORDER AND REASONS
Third-Party Plaintiffs, One Source Roofing, Inc.; Jasper Contractors, Inc.; and
Roofclaim.com, LLC, filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Third-Party Complaint
(“Plaintiffs”). 1 Third-Party Defendant, Blue Star Roofing, Inc. (“Defendant”), filed an
opposition, 2 and Plaintiffs did not file a reply. Having considered the parties’
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court issues this Order &
Reasons granting the motion.
I.

Background
On October 10, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a

November 10, 2023 deadline for amendments to the pleadings and third-party
actions. 3 On November 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third-party

Rec. Doc. 74. Their initial filing was deemed deficient because it did not include a
memorandum. Plaintiffs timely filed a revised version, which is Rec. Doc. 85.

1

2

Rec. Doc. 84.

3

Rec. Doc. 39.
1

complaint against Blue Star Roofing, Inc. 4 On November 21, 2023, the Court granted
the motion. 5
Defendant secured an extension through February 5, 2024, to respond. 6 On
February 5, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for More Definite Statement seeking to
compel Plaintiffs “to provide a more definite statement of their claims and to disclose
the relationships and timing of ownership events, contracts, indemnity agreements
and other similar agreements[.]” 7 Plaintiffs did not respond, and the Court entered
an Order 8 on March 18, 2024, granting that motion as unopposed. Under Rule 12(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs had “within 14 days after notice of
the order or within the time the court sets” 9 to provide the more definite statement.
They did not submit their more definite statement within 14 days.
On April 8, 2024, Defendant moved to Dismiss/Strike Third Party Complaint
for Failure to Comply with Court’s Order. 10 The next day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Leave to File Amended Third-Party Complaint to provide their more definite

Rec. Doc. 45. Their initial filing was deemed deficient because it did not include a
memorandum. Plaintiffs timely filed a revised version, which is Rec. Doc. 46.

4

5

Rec. Doc. 47.

6

Rec. Doc. 58.

7

Rec. Doc. 62-2 at 6.

8

Rec. Doc. 72.

Defendant erroneously states that the deadline was 10 days. Rec. Doc. 78-1 at 3.
Rec. Doc 73. Defendant’s initial filing was deficient. It timely filed a revised
version, which is Rec. Doc. 78. Dismiss/Strike Third-Party Complaint for Failure to
Comply with Court’s Order, which is mentioned here only for context.
9

10

2

statement. 11 The proposed Amended Third-Party Complaint adds one paragraph
regarding the officers of Defendant Blue Star Roofing, Inc.
II.

Applicable Law
Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course

no later than 21 days after service of a motion for more definite statement under Rule
12(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). If more than 21 days have passed after service of a
12(e) motion for more definite statement and no Scheduling Order has been entered,
then the party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” Id. Under Rule 12(e), “If the court orders a more definite
statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or
within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other
appropriate order.”
When a party moves for leave to amend after the deadline set forth in a
scheduling order, the request for leave to amend is governed by the more stringent
good cause requirements of Rule 16(b). Rule 16(b) provides that a scheduling order
“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

Rec. Doc. 74. Their initial filing was deemed deficient, and they timely filed a
revised version, which is Rec. Doc. 85.
11

3

extension.’” S&W Enterprises, LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d
533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)(citation omitted).
The Fifth Circuit has established a four-part test governing the exercise of the
trial court's discretion in determining whether a movant has established good cause.
Burkitt v. Flawless Records, Inc., CIV.A.03-2483, 2005 WL 1155774, at *1 (E.D. La.
May 5, 2005). The trial court considers: “(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.
When analyzing the prejudicial nature of a proposed amendment, the court
must consider whether the proposed amendment “(1) was merely proposing
alternative legal theories for recovery on the same underlying facts or (2) would
fundamentally alter the nature of the case.” Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. &
Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 427 (5th Cir. 2004). Amendments that fall into the first
category generally should be permitted, “as they advance Rule 15(a)'s policy of
promoting litigation on the merits rather than on procedural technicalities.” Id.
Amendments that fall into the second category may be denied if warranted by the
circumstances. Id.
Only after the party seeking to modify the scheduling order establishes “good
cause” under Rule 16(b) will the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a) apply to the
court’s decision to grant or deny leave to amend. S&W Enterprises, 315 F.3d at 536.
The language of Rule 15(a) “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.”

4

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L.L. Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1163 (5th Cir. 1982).
The Fifth Circuit has instructed that the “district court must possess a ‘substantial
reason’ to deny a request for leave to amend.” Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595
(5th Cir. 2004).
Although leave to amend is to be freely given under Rule 15(a), “that generous
standard is tempered by the necessary power of a district court to manage a case.”
Yumilicious Franchise, LLC v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003)). Factors
relevant to the consideration of a motion for leave under Rule 15(a) include “undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment.”
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003). Delay alone
cannot support denial of leave to amend. Mayeaux, 376 F.3d at 427. “The delay must
be undue, i.e., it must prejudice the nonmoving party or impose unwarranted burdens
on the court.” Id. (emphasis in original).
III.

Analysis
The Defendant moved to compel Plaintiffs to provide a more definite

statement. Then, after the more definite statement was filed, they moved to strike it
as untimely. The undersigned need not address the issue of untimeliness, however,
because the motion to amend should be granted even under the more stringent Rule

5

16(b) “good cause” standard. This determination is made without consideration of
the motion to strike, on which the undersigned expresses no opinion.
The proposed Amended Third-Party Complaint 12 seeks to add one paragraph
relating to the corporate officers of Defendant. The amendment does not add any
claims or parties. The amendment relates to the same underlying facts alleged in the
original Third-Party Complaint. The amendment would not fundamentally alter
the nature of the case nor unduly burden Defendant. Indeed, it is Defendant
who requested clarification in the first instance.
Defendant argues that the amended third-party complaint “lacks clear liability
allegations” and the amendment would be futile because it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 13 These contentions, however, go to the merits.
Defendant cites no caselaw to support its position, which has not been fully briefed
by either side. Similarly, Defendant suggests that it is not subject to this Court’s
jurisdiction. But this issue also has not been briefed. In sum, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have shown good cause under Rule 16(b) and that there is no substantial
reason to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Third-Party Complaint.
Accordingly, for these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs One Source Roofing, Inc.; Jasper Contractors,
Inc.; and Roofclaim.com, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Third-Party

12

Rec. Doc. 85-2.

13

Rec. Doc. 84 at 3-4.
6

Complaint (Rec. Doc. 85) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ proposed Amended Third-Party
Complaint 14 shall be filed in the record.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of May, 2024.

EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

Rec. Doc. 85-2.
7