Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Enerdel, Inc.

D. Kansas

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Enerdel, Inc.

DecidedOctober 19, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-02290

StatusUnknown

This text of Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Enerdel, Inc. (Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Enerdel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Enerdel, Inc., (D. Kan. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF WAUSAU, as subrogee of ) Black & Veatch Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-2290-DDC-GEB ) ENERDEL, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Join Additional Party (File Third-Party Complaint) (ECF No. 23). Defendant Enerdel, Inc. filed the motion on September 25, 2020, making any response to the motion due October 9, 2020. No response in opposition has been filed. Therefore, the motion is uncontested and may be granted without further notice pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4. Additionally, in its discretion, the Court finds the balance of factors weigh in favor of the filing of a third-party complaint as analyzed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a), and justice requires amendment.1

1 Whether to allow filing of a third-party complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 is “a matter within the sound discretion of the Court.” See AK Steel Corp. v. PAC Operating Ltd. P'ship, No. 15-9260- CM-GEB, 2016 WL 6163832, at *4 (D. Kan. Oct. 24, 2016) (collecting cases; internal citations omitted); see Lansing Trade Grp., LLC v. OceanConnect, LLC, No. 12-2090-JTM-GLR, 2013 WL 120158, at *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2013) (internal citations omitted). When exercising this discretion, some of the relevant factors considered by the court include: (1) the benefits of a single action versus prejudice to the other party and confusion, (2) the timeliness of the request and prejudice to the plaintiff in delay, (3) whether the main case would unnecessarily expand in scope, (4) whether IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Enerdel, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their Third-Party Complaint no later than October 30, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 19th day of October 2020.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

impleading new parties would unduly delay or complicate the trial, and (5) whether the third-party plaintiff's motion states sufficient grounds for the court to evaluate the propriety of third-party complaints. Admin. Comm. of Wal-Mart Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan v. Willard, 216 F.R.D. 511, 514 (D. Kan. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF WAUSAU, as subrogee of ) Black & Veatch Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-2290-DDC-GEB ) ENERDEL, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Join Additional Party (File Third-Party Complaint) (ECF No. 23). Defendant Enerdel, Inc. filed the motion on September 25, 2020, making any response to the motion due October 9, 2020. No response in opposition has been filed. Therefore, the motion is uncontested and may be granted without further notice pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4. Additionally, in its discretion, the Court finds the balance of factors weigh in favor of the filing of a third-party complaint as analyzed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a), and justice requires amendment.1

1 Whether to allow filing of a third-party complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 is “a matter within the sound discretion of the Court.” See AK Steel Corp. v. PAC Operating Ltd. P'ship, No. 15-9260- CM-GEB, 2016 WL 6163832, at *4 (D. Kan. Oct. 24, 2016) (collecting cases; internal citations omitted); see Lansing Trade Grp., LLC v. OceanConnect, LLC, No. 12-2090-JTM-GLR, 2013 WL 120158, at *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2013) (internal citations omitted). When exercising this discretion, some of the relevant factors considered by the court include: (1) the benefits of a single action versus prejudice to the other party and confusion, (2) the timeliness of the request and prejudice to the plaintiff in delay, (3) whether the main case would unnecessarily expand in scope, (4) whether IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Enerdel, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their Third-Party Complaint no later than October 30, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 19th day of October 2020.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

impleading new parties would unduly delay or complicate the trial, and (5) whether the third-party plaintiff's motion states sufficient grounds for the court to evaluate the propriety of third-party complaints. Admin. Comm. of Wal-Mart Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan v. Willard, 216 F.R.D. 511, 514 (D. Kan. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Enerdel, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/employers-insurance-company-of-wausau-v-enerdel-inc-ksd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack