MI WINDOWS & DOORS, INC. v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., No. 2:2007cv01233 - Document 32 (W.D. Pa. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 26 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's amended complaint due by 11/28/2008; Defendant's responsive pleading due 12/18/2008; 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 25 Motion to Strike and 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 11/25/08. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MI WINDOWS & DOORS, INC. v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC. Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MI WINDOWS & DOORS, INC. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 07-1233 SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC. Defendant. MEMORANDUM and ORDER Gary L. Lancaster, District Judge. Novemberl.s-: 2008 This is an action for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. that Plaintiff, MI Windows & Doors, Inc. defendant Southeastern Freight Lines, (MIWD), alleges Inc. (SEFL) is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify MIWD in a case brought against MIWD by a SEFL employee in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. action relates to an injury that the The Alabama SEFL employee allegedly sustained while unloading a truck containing MIWD products. MIWD alleges that the shipping agreement between MIWD and SEFL obligated SEFL to defend, indemnify, and provide insurance to MIWD related to the employee's injury [doc no. 1]. SEFL arguing, MIWD's filed a inter alia, negligence motion for judgment on the pleadings that the Alabama action relates solely to and, therefore, SEFL obligated to defend and indemnify MIWD. is not contractually SEFL also argues that this action is premature because the Alabama litigation is still pending Dockets.Justia.com and SEFL has not yet made payments in connection with the Alabama litigation. MIWD has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to add paragraphs: (1) supporting its allegation that SEFL caused or contributed to the employee's injuries; and (2) explaining that a settlement agreement was reached in the Alabama action in September l 2008, whereas MIWD is now required to pay an amount of money in excess of $75,000 to the injured SEFL employee [doc no. 26]. Fed.R.Civ.p. 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings. Rule 15(a) stipulates that, once a response to a party's pleading has been filed, that pleading may only be amended with leave of the trial court or by written consent of the adverse party. Id. court "should freely give leave when justice so requires. I! The Id. The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178/ 181-82 (1962). Thus, unless there is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial. 1993) See Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1413-14 (3d Cir. (cit i ng Foman, 371 U. S. 178)). A district court may deny leave to amend under Rule 15(a) only when the amended complaint fails to state a claim or 2 when plaintiffs' delay "is undue, prejudicial to the opposing party. 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984) II motivated by bad faith, or Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 F. 2d (citation omitted). " [p] rejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone for the denial of an amendment. " Cornell & Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 573 F.2d 820, 823 (3d Cir. 1978). Here, SEFL asserts that MIWD's proposed amendment is "frivolous" and "futile" and would cause "expense" and "unnecessary delay" in the disposition of MIWD's claims. We disagree. First, we do not believe that the amendment would be futile. that a The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained proposed amended, granted. amendment is futile when "the complaint, as would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be II In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Li tig., 114 F. 3d We do not find that the addition of information relating to the settlement or SEFL's negligence would cause a failure to state a claim. Additionally, we find it proper to plead that a settlement has been reached and that MIWD is legally obligated to pay the SEFL employee a sum of money to compensate him for his injuries. information regarding the settlement MIWD did not plead in its original complaint because the settlement occurred after MIWD initiated this action. Hence, we hold that the inclusion settlement is proper. 3 of information about the Second, unnecessary delay. leave to amend the complaint will not cause This case is in the early stages of litigation. Discovery has not yet begun. No trial date has been scheduled. Although a motion for judgment by the pleadings filed by SEFL is currently pending, SEFL's argument that the amendment "will only serve to delay the inevitable dismissal of MIWD's claims" is not persuasive. Third, we do not agree with SEFL that it will be significantly prejudiced by the amended complaint because it "spent time and money to file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings" and because it will be required "at further unnecessary delay" to reformulate its motion. expense and with "Prejudice does not result merely from a party's having to incur additional counsel fees; nor does it result from a delay in the movement of the case." See Delaware Trust Co. v. Lal, No. 256958, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 15, 1997) 868). "create 96-4784, 96-5783, (citing Adams, 1997 WL 739 F.2d at Allowing MIWD to amend its complaint, therefore, will not undue difficultyll in SEFL's defense in this lawsuit. Deakyne v. Comm'rs of Lewes, 416 F.2d 290, 300 (3d Cir. 1969). 4 Accordingly, the court finds no reason to preclude MIWD from amending its complaint. Therefore t we will motion for leave to file an amended complaint. An appropriate order follows. 5 grant MIWD I S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MI WINDOWS & DOORS, INC. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 07-1233 SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC. Defendant. AND NOW, this ORDER day of November, 2008, upon consideration of MI Windows & Door, Inc. motion for leave to IS file an amended complaint (doc. no. 26], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. MI Windows & Door, Inc. must file its amended complaint by November 28, 2008. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. must file its responsive pleading by December 18, 2008. All other outstanding motions are denied without prejudice. BY '/!tv.( -f; tAA , J. , ______________________ cc: All Counsel of Record
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
