Natalie Brink v. Kevin Powell

Opinion

Natalie Brink, Case No. 2:25-cv-01998-RFB-MDC Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT Kevin Powell, (ECF NO. 11) Defendants. Pending before the Court is defendant Kevin Powell’s (“defendant”) Motion for Leave to Assert Third-Party Complaint (“Motion”) (ECF No. 11). The Motion is not opposed. The Court GRANTS the Motion for the reasons below. This is a personal injury case removed from state court that arose out of plaintiff being injured in a motor vehicle accident. ECF No. 1-1. Defendant now moves for leave of the Court to file a third-party complaint to bring in Thomas Pablo as a third-party defendant in this case. ECF No. 11. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) govern the process by which a defendant may amend an answer to bring in a third party. Pursuant to Rule 14(a)(1), a defendant may add as a third- party defendant any person “who may be liable to it for all or part of” the damages claimed by the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). A party wishing to bring a third-party complaint must also “obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer.” Id. Defendant claims that Mr. Pablo is “responsible” for the motor vehicle accident at issue in this case and “may be liable for all or part of any damages claimed by [p]laintiff.” ECF No. 11 at 2. His proposed Third-Party Complaint alleges that Mr. Pablo is liable for the motor vehicle accident at issue under negligence and negligence per se theories. See ECF No. 11-1. For cause shown and because the Motion is unopposed, the Court therefore grants the Motion. See LR 7-2(d). Defendant has leave of the 1 Court to file his proposed Third-Party Complaint. He must file the Third-Party Complaint by March 10, }2026.! IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Kevin Powell’s Motion for Leave to Assert Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. 2. Defendant Kevin Powell must file the Third-Party Complaint by March 10, 2026. DATED: March 3, 2026. Hon, Maximiliefo D, Coxvvillier, HI Unéed States ye Judge ] ' Diversity jurisdiction is not destroyed by the addition of Mr. Pablo as a third-party defendant. See Nevada Eighty-Eight, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co., 753 F. Supp. 1516, 1521-22 (D. Nev. 1990).