In the case of Cooney v. Buck Motorsports Park LLC, No. 5:23-CV-02346-MKC (E.D. Pa. Jan 15, 2025 Costello, J.), the court addressed a Plaintiff’s opposition to a Defendant’s Motion for Leave of Court to Join Additional Defendants into the case which involved allegations of personal injury after a truck allegedly struck the Plaintiff during a dirt race track event.
The Plaintiffs opposed the joinder of the proposed third party Defendants under Federal Rule 14(a) and Local Rule 14.1(a) by asserting that the Motion to Join was untimely.
The court noted that, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14(a), a “defending party may, as third-party Plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or maybe liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.”
The court additionally noted that, under F.R.C.P. 14(a)(1), “the third-party Plaintiff must, by motion obtain the court’s leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer.”
Moreover, the court noted that the Eastern District Local Rule of Court 14.1 holds that applications pursuant to F.R.C.P. 14 for leave to join additional Defendants after the expiration of the time limit specified in that rule “will ordinarily be denied as untimely unless filed not more than 90 days after the service of the moving party’s answer.” However, the court noted that the trial court retained discretion on whether or not to apply that local rule or not.
The court additionally noted that, in this matter, the scheduled trial was only a few months away, that the discovery deadline had already been previously extended, and that the addition of the third party Defendants would not only extend the discovery period further, but would also guarantee a delay of trial and would complicate the issues at trial.
The court additionally noted that the late joinder would also likely harm the proposed third-party Defendants given how far along the original case had already proceeded. The court additionally noted that prejudice could result to the Plaintiff for the same reasons.
For all of these reasons, the court denied the Motion to Join the Third Party Defendants after finding that the motion was untimely and without sufficient justification where the original Defendants had sought the leave of court more than a year after they filed their Answer to the Complaint.
The court also noted that the Defendants were long aware of the existence of the proposed third-party Defendants, having listed them as individuals with discoverable information in the original Defendant’s initial federal court disclosures.
The court also noted that the Defendants who wished to join the third-party Defendants failed to explain to the court why they could not have learned of their alleged claims against the third-party Defendants sooner.
As such, the Motion to Join was denied.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
The court also noted that the Defendants who wished to join the third-party Defendants failed to explain to the court why they could not have learned of their alleged claims against the third-party Defendants sooner.
As such, the Motion to Join was denied.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 6, 2025).